Take Money, Lose Faith – Seven Catholic Schools turned into public schools in Washington DC (Maryland Daily Record)
Charles C. Haynes points out the trap that religious schools can fall into if they decide to take government money. For those of you who study the tight bonds between money and religious freedom, this story is a must-read. – Editor
EXCERPT:
On June 16, seven Roman Catholic schools in Washington, D.C., were transformed into seven public charter schools by a unanimous vote of the D.C. Public Charter School Board. It’s a conversion of sorts — only in reverse.
Other religious communities around the nation are already on the charter bandwagon, opening Arabic charters without Islam and Hebrew charters without Judaism. Not to be left behind, a Protestant minister in Harlem is pressing to start what he claims will be a religion-free charter in his church building.
Strange as it may sound, this is a hot new trend in education: creating faith-based schools without the faith.
Establishing a charter requires shedding overt religious identity because “religious charter school” is a First Amendment oxymoron. Although free from some regulations that apply to traditional public schools, charters are still public schools. That means they must be nonsectarian — neither promoting nor denigrating religion.
Read the full article at http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?id=145829&type=Daily
IRLA Meeting draws large crowd in Angola
John Graz, Secretary General of the International Religious Liberty Association (http://www.irla.org) reports that 40,000 people attended the IRLA meeting in Luanda, Angola on June 28. On July 5, a meeting will be held in St. Petersburg and on July 12 a Festival of Religious Freedom will be held in in Honolulu, and meetings are planned for Mexico in August 2008.
Unlikely Allies on Prison Reform – Coming together on a wedge issue (New York Times)
For conservatives and liberals, issues such as crime and punishment are losing their divisiveness as the left recognizes the importance of fighting crime and the right finds practical reasons for reform. We will see more of this as the former religious right is pushed into irrelevance.
By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
EXCERPT:
In those moments of recognition, Mr. [Mark] Earley began a startling
transformation from a tough-on-crime crusader to an advocate for prison
reform and a prominent critic of the very type of drug laws he had
formerly promoted. Since leaving the attorney’s general’s position in
2001, Mr. Earley has taken his new cause to a position as president of
Prison Fellowship Ministries, a national organization based in the
Washington suburbs
On the surface a redoubt of the religious right, firmly rooted in
evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, the Prison
Fellowship Ministries’ liberal position on such issues underscores the
increasing irrelevance of such rigid categories.
The group’s role in criminal justice bears similarity to the stance
taken by evangelical leaders like Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback
Church in Southern California, on global warming, AIDS prevention and Third World poverty.
“What’s distinct is that we’re in an ‘Aha!’ moment now,” Mr. Earley,
53, said in a phone conversation. “The crime issue used to be such a
driving wedge between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and
Republicans, and now it’s not. In the presidential campaign this year,
when have you heard crime as a wedge issue? It’s a common-ground issue,
and no one would have envisioned that in the ’70s and ’80s.”
Read the full article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28religion.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214629228-X1Zp5HcKIB/gLpXiwx4M6g&pagewanted=print
VIDEO: Michael Newdow in Panel at Boston College on Religious Freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance
This is particularly relevant this election year.
From http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/
October 18, 2006 – Boston College – Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life
Every day millions of schoolchildren pledge allegiance to the American flag and “the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Michael Newdow is a lawyer, physician, and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge reached the Supreme Court in 2004, where Newdow personally argued his appeal to the justices (it was later dismissed on a technicality).
In this panel discussion, Newdow presents his case against “under God.” Joining him in discussion are Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and social critic whose most recent book is Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today (Beacon, 2002); and Phillip Munoz, an assistant professor of political philosophy and American Constitutional law at Tufts University, who is currently completing a book on religious freedom and the American founders.
The discussion is moderated by Alan Wolfe, professor of political science and director of Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.
Panel Discussion – 55 minutes
Watch at http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/
Historical Profile: John Wycliffe – Morning Star of the Reformation (Excerpt from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs)
One of my favorite reformers has to be John Wycliffe, who translated the language of the Latin Vulgate into language that everybody could understand. This weekend, as part of our weekend inspirational series, we are pleased to present this excerpt from the classic, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, not because of any connection with a particular faith, but rather because Wycliffe aspired to take important text and present it to the common people, and thus to give them a voice. Wycliffe is a hero of religious liberty and had such an impact on the world that 41 years after his death, his political detractors dug up his body, burned it, and threw his ashes into the River Swift, where they spread into larger tributaries, into the ocean, and throughout the world, symbolizing the spread of liberty that would eventually reshape Europe and ultimately build a foundation for our freedoms today. – Editor
JOHN WYCLIFFE – (~1320 – December 1384)
It will not be inappropriate to devote a few pages of this work to a brief detail of the lives of some of those men who first stepped forward, regardless of the bigoted power which opposed all reformation, to stem the time of papal corruption, and to seal the pure doctrines of the Gospel with their blood.
Among these, Great Britain has the honor of taking the lead, and first maintaining that freedom in religious controversy which astonished Europe, and demonstrated that political and religious liberty are equally the growth of that favored island. Among the earliest of these eminent persons was John Wycliffe.
This celebrated reformer, denominated the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” was born about the year 1324, in the reign of Edward II. Of his extraction we have no certain account. His parents designing him for the Church, sent him to Queen’s College, Oxford, about that period founded by Robert Eaglesfield, confessor to Queen Philippi. But not meeting with the advantages for study in that newly established house which he expected, he removed to Merton College, which was then esteemed one of the most learned societies in Europe.
The first thing which drew him into public notice, was his defence of the university against the begging friars, who about this time, from their settlement in Oxford in 1230, had been troublesome neighbors to the university. Feuds were continually fomented; the friars appealing to the pope, the scholars to the civil power; and sometimes one party, and sometimes, the other, prevailed. The friars became very fond of a notion that Christ was a common beggar; that his disciples were beggars also; and that begging was of Gospel institution. This doctrine they urged from the pulpit and wherever they had access.
Wycliffe had long held these religious friars in contempt for the laziness of their lives, and had now a fair opportunity of exposing them. He published a treatise against able beggary, in which he lashed the friars, and proved that they were not only a reproach to religion, but also to human society. The university began to consider him one of their first champions, and he was soon promoted to the mastership of Baliol College.
About this time, Archbishop Islip founded Canterbury Hall, in Oxford, where he established a warden and eleven scholars. To this wardenship Wycliffe was elected by the archbishop, but upon his demise, he was displaced by his successor, Stephen Langham, bishop of Ely. As there was a degree of flagrant injustice in the affair, Wycliffe appealed to the pope, who subsequently gave it against him from the following cause: Edward III, then king of England, had withdrawn the tribune, which from the time of King John had been paid to the pope. The pope menaced; Edward called a parliament. The parliament resolved that King John had done an illegal thing, and given up the rights of the nation, and advised the king not to submit, whatever consequences might follow.
The clergy now began to write in favor of the pope, and a learned monk published a spirited and plausible treatise, which had many advocates. Wycliffe, irritated at seeing so bad a cause so well defended, opposed the monk, and did it in so masterly a way that he was considered no longer as unanswerable. His suit at Rome was immediately determined against him; and nobody doubted but his opposition to the pope, at so critical a period, was the true cause of his being non-suited at Rome.
Wycliffe was afterward elected to the chair of the divinity professor: and now fully convinced of the errors of the Romish Church, and the vileness of its monastic agents, he determined to expose them. In public lectures he lashed their vices and opposed their follies. He unfolded a variety of abuses covered by the darkness of superstition. At first he began to loosen the prejudices of the vulgar, and proceeded by slow advances; with the metaphysical disquisitions of the age, he mingled opinions in divinity apparently novel. The usurpations of the court of Rome was a favorite topic. On these he expatiated with all the keenness of argument, joined to logical reasoning. This soon procured him the clamor of the clergy, who, with the archbishop of Canterbury, deprived him of his office.
At this time the administration of affairs was in the hands of the duke of Lancaster, well known by the name of John of Gaunt. This prince had very free notions of religion, and was at enmity with the clergy. The exactions of the court of Rome having become very burdensome, he determined to send the bishop of Bangor and Wycliffe to remonstrate against these abuses, and it was agreed that the pope should no longer dispose of any benefices belonging to the Church of England. In this embassy, Wycliffe’s observant mind penetrated into the constitution and policy of Rome, and he returned more strongly than ever determined to expose its avarice and ambition.
Having recovered his former situation, he inveighed, in his lectures, against the pope-his usurpation-his infallibility-his pride-his avarice- and his tyranny. He was the first who termed the pope Antichrist. From the pope, he would turn to the pomp, the luxury, and trappings of the bishops, and compared them with the simplicity of primitive bishops. Their superstitions and deceptions were topics that he urged with energy of mind and logical precision.
From the patronage of the duke of Lancaster, Wycliffe received a good benefice; but he was no sooner settled in his parish, than his enemies and the bishops began to persecute him with renewed vigor. The duke of Lancaster was his friend in this persecution, and by his presence and that of Lord Percy, earl marshal of England, he so overawed the trial, that the whole ended in disorder.
After the death of Edward III his grandson Richard II succeeded, in the eleventh year of his age. The duke of Lancaster not obtaining to be the sole regent, as he expected, his power began to decline, and the enemies of Wycliffe, taking advantage of the circumstance, renewed their articles of accusation against him. Five bulls were despatched in consequence by the pope to the king and certain bishops, but the regency and the people manifested a spirit of contempt at the haughty proceedings of the pontiff, and the former at that time wanting money to oppose an expected invasion of the French, proposed to apply a large sum, collected for the use of the pope, to that purpose. The question was submitted to the decision of Wycliffe. The bishops, however, supported by the papal authority, insisted upon bringing Wycliffe to trial, and he was actually undergoing examination at Lambeth, when, from the riotous behavior of the populace without, and awed by the command of Sir Lewis Clifford, a gentleman of the court, that they should not proceed to any definitive sentence, they terminated the whole affair in a prohibition to Wycliffe, not to preach those doctrines which were obnoxious to the pope; but this was laughed at by our reformer, who, going about barefoot, and in a long frieze gown, preached more vehemently than before.
In the year 1378, a contest arose between two popes, Urban VI and Clement VII which was the lawful pope, and true vicegerent of God. This was a favorable period for the exertion of Wicliffe’s talents: he soon produced a tract against popery, which was eagerly read by all sorts of people.
About the end of the year, Wycliffe was seized with a violent disorder, which it was feared might prove fatal. The begging friars, accompanied by four of the most eminent citizens of Oxford, gained admittance to his bed chamber, and begged of him to retract, for his soul’s sake, the unjust things he had asserted of their order. Wycliffe, surprised at the solemn message, raised himself in his bed, and with a stern countenance replied, “I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.”
When Wycliffe recovered, he set about a most important work, the translation of the Bible into English. Before this work appeared, he published a tract, wherein he showed the necessity of it. The zeal of the bishops to suppress the Scriptures greatly promoted its sale, and they who were not able to purchase copies, procured transcripts of particular Gospels or Epistles. Afterward, when Lollardy increased, and the flames kindled, it was a common practice to fasten about the neck of the condemned heretic such of these scraps of Scripture as were found in his possession, which generally shared his fate.
Immediately after this transaction, Wycliffe ventured a step further, and affected the doctrine of transubstantiation. This strange opinion was invented by Paschade Radbert, and asserted with amazing boldness. Wycliffe, in his lecture before the University of Oxford, 1381, attacked this doctrine, and published a treatise on the subject. Dr. Barton, at this time vice-chancellor of Oxford, calling together the heads of the university, condemned Wycliffe’s doctrines as heretical, and threatened their author with excommunication. Wycliffe could now derive no support from the duke of Lancaster, and being cited to appear before his former adversary, William Courteney, now made archbishop of Canterbury, he sheltered himself under the plea, that, as a member of the university, he was exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. This plea was admitted, as the university were determined to support their member.
The court met at the appointed time, determined, at least to sit in judgment upon his opinions, and some they condemned as erroneous, others as heretical. The publication on this subject was immediately answered by Wycliffe, who had become a subject of the archbishop’s determined malice. The king, solicited by the archbishop, granted a license to imprison the teacher of heresy, but the commons made the king revoke this act as illegal. The primate, however, obtained letters from the king, directing the head of the University of Oxford to search for all heresies and books published by Wycliffe; in consequence of which order, the university became a scene of tumult. Wycliffe is supposed to have retired from the storm, into an obscure part of the kingdom. The seeds, however, were scattered, and Wycliffe’s opinions were so prevalent that it was said if you met two persons upon the road, you might be sure that one was a Lollard. At this period, the disputes between the two popes continued. Urban published a bull, in which he earnestly called upon all who had any regard for religion, to exert themselves in its cause; and to take up arms against Clement and his adherents in defence of the holy see.
A war, in which the name of religion was so vilely prostituted, roused Wycliffe’s inclination, even in his declining years. He took up his pen once more, and wrote against it with the greatest acrimony. He expostulated with the pope in a very free manner, and asks him boldly: ‘How he durst make the token of Christ on the cross (which is the token of peace, mercy and charity) a banner to lead us to slay Christian men, for the love of two false priests, and to oppress Christiandom worse than Christ and his apostles were oppressed by the Jews? ‘When,’ said he, ‘will the proud priest of Rome grant indulgences to mankind to live in peace and charity, as he now does to fight and slay one another?’
This severe piece drew upon him the resentment of Urban, and was likely to have involved him in greater troubles than he had before experienced, but providentially he was delivered out of their hands. He was struck with the palsy, and though he lived some time, yet it was in such a way that his enemies considered him as a person below their resentment.
Wycliffe returning within short space, either from his banishment, or from some other place where he was secretly kept, repaired to his parish of Lutterworth, where he was parson; and there, quietly departing this mortal life, slept in peace in the Lord, in the end of the year 1384, upon Silvester’s day. It appeared that he was well aged before he departed, “and that the same thing pleased him in his old age, which did please him being young.”
Wycliffe had some cause to give them thanks, that they would at least spare him until he was dead, and also give him so long respite after his death, forty-one years to rest in his sepulchre before they ungraved him, and turned him from earth to ashes; which ashes they also took and threw into the river. And so was he resolved into three elements, earth, fire, and water, thinking thereby utterly to extinguish and abolish both the name and doctrine of Wycliffe forever. Not much unlike the example of the old Pharisees and sepulchre knights, who, when they had brought the Lord unto the grave, thought to make him sure never to rise again. But these and all others must know that, as there is no counsel against the Lord, so there is no keeping down of verity, but it will spring up and come out of dust and ashes, as appeared right well in this man; for though they dug up his body, burned his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn.
ADVOCACY: There’s More to Faith than James Dobson (FaithfulAmerica.org)
Is Focus on the Family president James Dobson’s opinion worth more than the beliefs of the entire American population?
The cable news networks seem to think so.
Early this week, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a groundbreaking survey of 35,000 Americans documenting the diversity and tolerance of people of faith and the growing consensus around issues like poverty and the environment.
But what religion story dominated the cable networks yesterday? James Dobson attacking Sen. Barack Obama for a speech he gave two years ago on his faith.
In fact, on Tuesday, June 24, Dr. Dobson was mentioned a total of 189 times on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. The landmark Pew survey? Just 8.
Let the cables know there’s a lot more to faith than James Dobson.
Fill out the petition at http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/t/2447/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1291
http://www.faithfulamerica.org/
This Fourth of July, Celebrate Religious Freedom (The Baptist Standard)
Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty says that it is time to celebrate our religious freedom this 4th of July.
Our founders protected our God-given freedom by barring government from meddling in religion or taking sides in religious disputes. As a result, and as a consequence of their foresight and wisdom, America is one of the most religious and most religiously diverse nations on the face of the earth. Despite our religious passion and pluralism, we have been able to avoid, for the most part, the religious conflicts and wars that have punctuated history and continue to plague much of the world today.
Read more of this essay at http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8156&Itemid=9
Professor Steven Calabresi on Enforcing Morality (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy)
In this essay published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Steven Calabresi, the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law, comments on Judge Robert Bork’s thought-provoking book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, specifically focusing on governmental efforts to enforce morality. Calabresi argues that there is a place in the government for legislating morality.
“This Essay explores that topic by seeking to shed additional light on two fundamental questions raised by Judge Bork’s book. First, what is the proper relationship between law, religion, and morality? Second, is it appropriate for the government to punish adult consensual conduct that does not directly harm other individuals, such as drug dealing and possession, prostitution, suicide, and for that matter professional boxing or dueling? I will address these two topics in turn.”
A short excerpt and then a link:
Legalizing drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide could and probably would produce an explosion of such self-destructive behavior. After legalization, the government could itself encourage immoral behavior: (1) by selling drugs in state-owned, for-profit stores (the way some states continue to sell alcohol), (2) by running state-owned brothels to raise tax revenue, or (3) by encouraging elderly Medicare patients to consider assisted suicide to keep welfare costs down. Like it or not, the law teaches moral lessons, and people, especially in America, are quite prone to believe that what is legal is also moral.
Read the full essay (in PDF format) at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol31_No2_Calabresionline.pdf
Thanks to Howard Friedman for posting a link to this piece on his blog at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/recently-available-scholarly-article-of.html
VIDEO: Increasing American Religious Comity (Pew Forum by way of Spectrum Magazine)
Thanks to Alexander Carpenter for finding this great video. Click here to watch and review the analysis: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/25/pew_video_increasing_american_religious_comity
Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
—
Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.
Some Thoughts
This is an interesting statistic. The question I have is whether or not this kind of thinking leads to a neutralization of religious belief. Is it an effort to minimize differences in order to get along, and if so, does it lead to abandonment of one’s own distinct beliefs?
This could well be the difference between the pursuit of religious pluralism in the fruit salad metaphor where each faith is distinct and has its own flavor versus a smoothie where it all blends together and the net effect is that each part means less. This includes the common elements of faith as well as the individual differentiated core elements of religious worship and thought, or those distinct practices that may require accommodation, whether this involves keeping a holy day or wearing religious clothing.
Part of celebrating religious freedom is the recognition that faiths can peacefully coexist even though they have mutually exclusive beliefs. In other words, you do not have to agree with somebody else’s view of heaven or what it takes to get there in order to honor their religious commitment and their faith. People should not feel pressured to agree that their beliefs are also correct if they do not share them, nor should they force their faith on others.
It takes a lot of work to maintain a welcoming environment in both law and practice for religious pluralism and diversity, but it is far better than the alternatives of neutralizing faith or favoring some beliefs over others.
RAW MATERIALS: This week’s Obama / Dobson broughaha
To help understand what’s going on between Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, we have assembled the raw materials and news stories about the subject.
1. Read Obama’s Speech from June 28, 2006
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
2. Listen to Dobson’s June 23, 2008 broadcast about Obama’s speech here.
“Obviously, that is offensive to me,” Dr. Dobson says. “He’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”
3. Read the news reports and blogs. Some of the hundreds that hit the web are listed below with some key paragraphs.
Focus on Fruitcake: Dr. Dobson’s Half-Baked Recipe for Theocracy by Rob Boston
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
“Dobson’s broadcast makes one thing clear: He remains a “my-way-or-the-highway” guy. Dobson is as dogmatic as they come. On this morning’s broadcast, he comes dangerously close to saying that the views of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians can be safely discarded because they are in the minority.”
Deborah’s US Liberal Politics Blog – Deborah White
“But as brilliant Obama’s speech was, Dobson’s larger concern is decidedly not words uttered two years ago by the junior senator from Illinois. It’s about the political inroads Obama is making in 2008 with Republicans and younger evangelical Christians disenchanted with Bush administration dishonesties and failed policies, and with the narrow focus of older religious-right leaders as Dobson.”
US News and World Report Blog Buzz: Dobson, Obama – by Robert Schlesinger and Johannah Cornblatt
James Dobson tears into Obama, making WashMo’s Kevin Drum think that irking Dobson really isn’t very hard. Andrew Sullivan seems to think it’s not anger as much as fear, and other liberal bloggers agree. Hot Air’s Allahpundit manages to both brush off Dobson and criticize Obama. And Taylor Marsh thinks it’s the latest reason to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
“James Dobson Rips Barack Obama” David Brody
Christian Broadcasting Network
During one part of the show Dobson said of Obama, “I think he is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”
Obama has spent a considerable amount of time reaching out to Christians. He has held conversations with everyone from T.D. Jakes to Max Lucado. His message has been warmly received by some and shunned by others who agree with Dobson.
‘Fruitcake’ Obama under fire from Christian right leader (AFP)
Hitting back at Obama’s courting of evangelical voters, Dobson highlighted a speech two years ago to religious leaders in which the Democrat said he could not outlaw abortion based on his own Christian beliefs.
“That is a fruitcake interpretation of the constitution,” Dobson said on a radio show aired by his Focus on the Family group.
“This is why we have elections, to support what we believe, to be wise and moral. We don’t have to go to the lowest common denominator of morality which is what he is suggesting,” he said.
“Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?”
Dobson also hit out at Obama’s oft-stated mention of Old Testament passages that call for the stoning of homosexuals, to illustrate his point that the Bible is not always helpful to political discourse.
“That kind of commentary drives me crazy,” Dobson said. “He is dragging Biblical understanding through the gutter.”
4. Your turn. What do you think? Post your thoughts below.
Or you can comment at http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/174386/James_Dobson_accuses_Obama_of_#Post174386
Add to Google