Americans United for Separation of Church and State

School Daze: Louisiana Approves Taxpayer Funding For Ill-Equipped Church School That Operates “On Faith”

brown — Wed, 30 May 2012 16:48:04 +0000

This shocking story shows precisely what’s wrong with private schools that accept vouchers – they aren’t held to the same standards of accountability as traditional public schools, yet states treat them as a solution to their education problems.

Louisiana has been hard at work expanding its school voucher program recently, and we’re already beginning to see the results. They’re not good.

The Louisiana Department of Education has just said the New Living Word School in Ruston (near Shreveport) can take up to 315 students through the state’s Minimum Foundation “scholarship” program. The program allows students at “failing” public schools to attend alternate public or private schools provided their household income is no more than 250 percent of the poverty level.

The New Living Word School, which is run by a church, currently has 122 students. Assuming it ends up with the full 315 students, it will have the most seats for Minimum Foundation Program students in the state. It will also get $2.7 million in taxpayer money, and students who attend the school will be transported there by public school buses.

Aside from the constitutionally murky problem of giving state dollars to a school run by a church, this particular school is simply not up to the task of educating 315 students. According to the Monroe News Star, the New Living Word School doesn’t have a large enough building, enough computers, enough desks or enough teachers for that many kids.

The newspaper said the state didn’t bother to check whether or not the school can actually handle 315 students because it isn’t required to. All state officials have to do is conduct a phone interview and verify that the school is state approved and doesn’t discriminate based on race.

Department of Education spokeswoman Rene Greer said parents have the opportunity to tour schools before enrolling their kids and that the Minimum Foundation Program “is designed to empower parents to make choices,” according to the News Star.

But fear not, naysayers. New Living Word principal and church pastor, the Rev. Jerry Baldwin, has a plan! Sort of.

Baldwin said the school is moving forward “on faith” and that New Living Word will begin construction this summer on a 12,000-square-foot building that will hold 16 classrooms, according to the report.

If the construction isn’t complete in time, however, Baldwin has yet another suspect plan. He said the school can accommodate the new students in the church’s gym. When asked by the News Star about the lack of computers and desks, Baldwin claimed he knows someone who may be able to build desks quickly and, “You don’t need a computer on the first day of school.”

This building is pretty critical to the school’s operations because it’s highly questionable whether its current crop of 122 students is being properly accommodated now. Classes are being held Sunday school classrooms. These classrooms have a video monitor, no computers and only long desks that serve about 11 students, according to the News Star.

Baldwin told the newspaper that primary instruction for students at his school comes from watching DVDs, while a teacher is there mainly to manage the class, review homework, answer questions and give assignments.

Would the state of Louisiana allow a public school that lacks even the most basic necessities to educate students to more than double its enrollment? I would hope not.

Instead of making bad schools even worse by taking away their resources, Louisiana should spend some time trying to make its public schools better. There’s no easy way to do that, but sending children who need the most assistance to church schools that can’t provide it is not only doing those children a disservice, it’s doing the Constitution a disservice as well.

Issues:

Vouchers

Tags:

New Living Word School, Minimum Foundation Program, Louisiana Department of Education

Location:

Louisiana

Columbia (OR) Chapter Hosts NOW Action VP Erin Matson on "The War on Contraception"

corbin — Tue, 29 May 2012 21:09:55 +0000

Beth Corbin

In The Field

The event takes place at 7 PM, at the Eliot Center at First Unitarian Church, Buchan Building, 1226 SW Salmon St., Portland, OR 97205

On Wednesday, May 30, at 7:00 PM the Columbia Chapter will host National Organization for Women Action Vice President Erin Matson. Ms. Matson will address the issue of birth control as a perceived assault on religious freedom, and the misuse of “conscience” as part of an agenda to block women’s access to contraception. She will also discuss ongoing efforts and difficulties toward expanding access to contraception at the federal and state level, as well as through corporate policy; and will share her experiences from the front lines of this battle, offering ideas on how each of us can help.

Ms. Matson is a graduate of Georgetown University. She has been a communications manager and speechwriter for several public figures and organizations committed to “shattering the glass ceiling.” At the age of 23 she was elected president of Minnesota’s NOW -- the youngest state officer in the country. Before the age of 30 Ms. Matson won election as one of the youngest national NOW officers.

Other special guests include: Steven K. Green, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy; Law professor at Willamette University College of Law; and former Legal Director at Americans United's national office. Michele Stranger Hunt, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, and Laura Terrill Patten, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon.

The event takes place at the Eliot Center at First Unitarian Church, Buchan Building, 1226 SW Salmon St., Portland, OR 97205

The event is FREE and Open to the Public!

For more information, including driving, parking and accessibility information, please visit the Columbia Chapter website: www.keepthemseparate.org or send an email to: keepthemseparate@aol.com

Issues:

The Faith-Based Initiative & Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers, Reproductive Health & Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors, Responding to Common Attacks on Church-State Separation

Tags:

chapter event

Chapters:

Columbia (Oregon & S.W. Washington)

Two Thumbs Up: New Documentary Explores N.J. Classroom Conflict Over Teacher/Preacher

boston — Tue, 29 May 2012 14:59:09 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

When it comes to religious freedom and church-state separation, some people just don’t get it.

The summer movies are coming out, and our silver screens are already filling up with Snow White, superheroes and spaceships.

If you're in the mood for something a little different, I'd like to recommend a new documentary about religion in public schools that you can watch for free right at your computer.

Some of you might recall the incident behind this film. It occurred in 2006 and involved a public school history teacher in Kearny, N.J., who preached fundamentalist Christianity to his class.

David Paszkiewicz told students, “If you reject [Jesus’] gift of salvation, then you know where you belong” and “[Jesus] did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

Paszkiewicz had also promoted creationism in class, telling students that there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark.

A student in the classroom, Matthew LaClair, knew this was inappropriate. He also suspected that school officials would not believe him without evidence, so LaClair began recording portions of the classes. Soon he had solid evidence of Paszkiewicz’s in-class proselytizing.

In short order, a media firestorm engulfed the town. The school board’s first reaction to the matter was curious: They quickly passed a new policy – barring students from recording teachers in class. (I should note that LaClair’s actions broke no New Jersey laws.)

Filmmaker Vic Losick has just produced a new documentary, In God We Teach, examining the Kearny incident. The documentary, which runs about an hour, features several quotes by Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. You can watch it here and here.

Losick scored something of a coup: He persuaded Paszkiewicz to sit down for a lengthy on-camera interview. As far as I know, this is the first time Paszkiewicz has discussed the issue publicly (outside of fundamentalist churches, that is).

I was struck by the teacher’s complete and utter inability to engage in any serious form of self-reflection. Losick’s technique is to simply let the characters in this drama tell their stories. He doesn’t take a side. But only a theological ally of Paszkiewicz could see him as anything other than a typical smug and arrogant fundamentalist who believes that he has all of the answers – and that this gives him the right to spread his views in public school classrooms.

Paszkiewicz also comes off as disingenuous. At first, he tried to deny having made the "you belong in hell" statement. But LaClair had it on tape, so that failed. Paszkiewicz then fell back on blaming the students. They asked him about religion, you see, so had to talk to them about it. In the documentary, AU’s Lynn handily explains why this is nonsense.

Watching the documentary, I was reminded of how when it comes to religious freedom and church-state separation, some people just don’t get it. Losick incorporates film clips from raucous school board meetings during which Paszkiewicz’s supporters made all of the standard arguments about majority rule and the need for “Christian” values in schools (as if all Christians agreed on what those values are!) It’s alarming to realize that this took place 10 miles outside of cosmopolitan New York City.

The story has a happy ending – kind of. Facing legal action, the school board apologized to LaClair and his family, and Paszkiewicz was told to stop proselytizing. As part of an out-of-court settlement, the school district agreed to bring in experts from the Anti-Defamation League to brief personnel on church-state law. In addition, Lynn traveled to Kearny and spoke at a special assembly for students and staff where he answered a lot of questions.

LaClair went on to study journalism at the New School in New York City. Paszkiewicz is still teaching history at Kearny High School. Based on what he says in the documentary, it’s pretty clear that Paszkiewicz hasn’t learned his lesson. One can only hope there are other Matthew LaClairs in the school keeping him honest.

Check out In God We Teach. It’s a fascinating look at how “culture war” issues continue to reverberate in our public schools.

Issues:

Creationism & Evolution, Religious Distributions, Events and Evangelism during the School Day

Tags:

Matthew LaClair, David Paszkiewicz, Vic Losick, Kearny, new jersey, In God We Teach

Rush To Judgment: Missouri’s Deceptive ‘Right To Pray’ Amendment Heads For August Ballot

conn — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:54:36 +0000

Joseph L. Conn

Wall of Separation

If students have religious objections to learning about evolution, can they refuse to do homework for biology class?

Missouri voters are being asked to buy a pig in a poke – and the sale of said porker is coming up sooner than expected.

Gov. Jay Nixon announced yesterday that a “Right To Pray” Amendment will be going on the ballot in August instead of November as expected.

Why the rush? According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nixon’s staff said it was “because the provisions of the amendment would be effective immediately if approved by voters."

Huh?

In fact, political observers in the state say the Democratic governor knows the amendment will draw large numbers of GOP-voting religious conservatives to the polls and he wants to get that influx out of the way before the November election.

Regardless of his motive, Nixon has given advocates of church-state separation less time to educate voters about the true impact of the measure.

Drafted by Religious Right champion Rep. Mike McGhee (R-Odessa), the 374-word scheme purports to protect the right of citizens to express their religious beliefs, to guarantee the right of school children to pray and acknowledge God and to require public schools to display the Bill of Rights.

At least that’s what a ballot summary of the amendment says.

In fact, that summary masks the real impact of the proposal. The measure’s language is so broad no one knows for sure what its effect might be.

The amendment mandates, for example, that the state “shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly.”

How will state courts define such a sweeping affirmation? Does it mean that governmental gatherings will all feature group invocations and benedictions? What if one person's "right to pray" intrudes on another person's right to abstain from praying or to pray according to the tenets of her own faith?

The amendment also mandates that “the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies.”

Does that mean every session of the legislature, the city council and the sewer district board of trustees will now open with prayers? Will the representatives of all faith traditions be invited? Will non-believers be allowed to give secular addresses?

The impact on public schools will also be dramatic.

The amendment requires the state to ensure “that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs; that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances.”

Again, the wording is so open-ended that it’s certain to result in problems in the classroom.

If students have religious objections to learning about evolution, can they refuse to do homework for biology class? If students find the language in John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath objectionable, can they refuse to read it in an English course?

An ACLU affiliate sued in state court asking that the ballot summary be revised to more accurately tell voters what the amendment will do. A district judge, however, recently ruled against the lawsuit.

A lot is at stake here.

As Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told St. Louis NBC affiliate WSDK-TV, "The United States and Missouri Constitutions already broadly protect freedom of religion. This amendment would open the door to coercive prayer and proselytizing in public schools and other government settings."

State constitutions can’t trump the church-state separation provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but that doesn’t mean this amendment may not have a mischievous effect on Missourians’ individual freedom. On Aug. 7, voters should think long and hard before approving new constitutional “rights” that could have an unknown impact.

Issues:

Creationism & Evolution, School Prayer, Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings

Tags:

Missouri prayer amendment

Location:

Missouri

Teacher Terminated: University Prof Who Complained About Crosses Is Out Of A Job

brown — Thu, 24 May 2012 17:39:36 +0000

Simon Brown

Wall of Separation

Bradford risked her job to stand up for religious liberty, and instead of getting a gold medal, she ended up with a pink slip. That’s just plain wrong.

When Sissy Bradford stood up for the Constitution, she was rewarded with intimidation and death threats.

Bradford, an adjunct criminology professor at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, complained in 2011 about a taxpayer-funded tower featuring four Christian crosses being built near the entrance to the campus. The tower was on private land, but it was built with city funds, featured the university seal and was on track to someday become the property of the public school.

Thanks to her protest and a letter from the Americans United Legal Department, the crosses were subsequently removed. That should have been the end of the story, except it wasn’t.

Although she was scheduled to teach four classes in the fall, Bradford was informed by the university on May 16 that her services would no longer be needed. No reason was given, according to the San Antonio Current.

This development comes after Bradford had been subjected to months of vicious backlash from cross defenders. The Current reports that Bradford received an email on Nov. 27 that asked, “As a professor, do you have the right to live?” Another email called Bradford the offspring of Satan and suggested she marry Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Things got so bad that Bradford asked campus police to protect her, but her requests were ignored. (The university declined to comment on the matter). According to the local paper, she later complained to Texas A&M at College Station, which allowed her to file a statement with university police on Dec. 5.

In that statement, Bradford said: “I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.”

The Current learned that school police did open an investigation, but closed it without taking any action.

To take up the slack, students loyal to Bradford began escorting her to her car, according to the news report. But soon even Bradford’s supporters came under fire from cross defenders. When Kirsten Verdi, who has since graduated from Texas A&M-San Antonio, defended Bradford in class, another student told her, “You need to be beaten,” according to the Current.

Although Bradford is no longer a university employee, she continues to be a target of hatred. Commenters leaving messages on the Current article within the last week said things like:

“Professor Bradford is stupid for debating over a cross. If she does not like it, she should get another job. That is good that she felt harassed [sic] after that email because that is the same way we as Christians felt. Welcome to our world. I feel bad for you Sissy Bradford.”

Bradford was brave to take an unpopular stand on behalf of church-state separation in a community where many clearly feel very strongly about religion. She risked her job to stand up for religious liberty, and instead of getting a gold medal, she ended up with a pink slip. That’s just plain wrong.

Prof. Bradford, we salute your courage and your commitment to the Constitution. And university officials should be ashamed of themselves for the action they have taken.

Issues:

Religious Displays and Holidays

Tags:

Sissy Bradford, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

Location:

Texas

Americans United and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination Oppose Hiring Discrimination in VAWA

krueger — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:31:28 +0000

Emily Krueger

Legislative

"We should not pass a bill that allows a person applying for a job paid for with Federal funds to be discriminated against based on religion.”

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization by a vote of 222-205. Unfortunately the House version (among other problems), contains a provision allowing government funds to underwrite religious hiring discrimination.

In short, the Senate version of the bill bars any organization that accepts VAWA money to perform services from discriminating against its employees in that program on the basis of religion. This language was approved by the House Judiciary Committee and set for the House floor. Opponents of such protections must have realized the contents of the provision at the last minute because, on the floor, the bill sponsor, Sandy Adams (R-FL), offered what is called the Manager’s amendment, which stripped this prohibition so as to allow faith-based organizations to take federal funds and discriminate in hiring with those funds.

Along with 45 other members of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), AU sent a letter to all members of the House of Representatives and their staff voicing our objection to this discriminatory measure. The letter explains that the Adams Amendment to the bill permits religious organizations “to take VAWA funds and use those funds to discriminate against a qualified individual based on nothing more than his or her religious beliefs.” During debate, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) submitted our letter for the Congressional Record and stated that she joined us in opposition to the measure.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) also took time to explain why the provision is detrimental. “Since the 1960s,” he said, “we have had, as a Federal policy, a prohibition against discrimination based on religion when using Federal funds. The 1964 Civil Rights Act had an exemption for churches and other religious organization using their own funds to be able to consider religion in hiring. However,” he continued, “the manager’s amendment specifically allows those groups to discriminate based on religion with federal funds. We should not pass a bill that allows a person applying for a job paid for with Federal funds to be discriminated against based on religion.”

Americans United also sent an individual letter to all members of the House expressing our opposition. The bill now moves to conference to be reconciled with the Senate version of VAWA, and AU and CARD will continue our efforts to remove the provision allowing government-funded religious discrimination in the final version of the bill.

Issues:

The Faith-Based Initiative & Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers, In the Workplace: Discrimination, Exemptions & Religious Practice

Resolve To Stop Wasting Time: Congressional Republicans Promote Yet Another Pro-Prayer Statement

boston — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:21:05 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

I can guarantee you that every fundamentalist Christian in the country would demand 'freedom from religion' if public institutions suddenly adopted Islam

Americans don’t agree on much, but one thing pretty much everyone can agree on is that Congress is not a very popular institution right now. A recent poll found that only 8 percent of us think Congress is doing a good job.

Americans United’s Legislative Department works with members of Congress and knows that there are lots of good men and women serving in that body. So what accounts for this?

I suspect it’s a matter of priorities. The jobless rate remains too high, and the economy continues to look fragile. People are worried about their ability to pay the bills.

Too many in Congress – especially among the leadership – don’t seem to share these concerns. Some of its members seem determined, in fact, to score cheap political points with meaningless resolutions that further the “culture war” but don’t help anyone in need.

Consider H. Res. 622, which was recently introduced by U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.). The measure, which has 33 co-sponsors, would put the House on record as expressing support for official prayers before school board meetings.

As a practical matter, resolutions like this have little meaning. Congress can pass a resolution stating that the Earth is flat, but that doesn’t make it so. But these legislative gestures are still annoying because increasingly they are vehicles to assail our fundamental freedoms and score political points.

This particular resolution, which drones on for four pages, cites a 1983 Supreme Court ruling dealing with prayers before state legislatures. It says this ruling, Marsh v. Chambers, permits ceremonial prayers before government meetings and calls them “a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of the Nation.”

The resolution makes other dubious claims, among them the assertion that the United States was “founded on the principle of freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.”

The right-wingers love to repeat this statement ad nauseam, but it’s insipid. These concepts are two sides of the same coin; they aren’t in conflict.

When you exercise your freedom of religion by, say, adopting Methodism, you are by extension saying you don’t want to be a Catholic, a Mormon or a Muslim. It would be hard for you to practice your Methodism if the government is at every opportunity trying to force Catholicism, Mormonism or Islam down your throat. (And I can guarantee you that every fundamentalist Christian in the country would demand “freedom from religion” if public institutions suddenly adopted Islam.)

Americans United filed a brief in a 2005 case from Delaware challenging official prayers before school board meetings. In that ruling, a federal appeals court struck down the prayers, which were almost always Christian, noting that students often attend school board meetings and that they should not be subjected to religious worship against their will.

Walberg and his supporters are urging school boards to get around this by adopting so-called “non-sectarian” prayers. Here’s another idea: Instead of fussing over what type of religious worship to use before a public meeting, school board members should leave prayer to the individual conscience and focus instead on issues like the budget, adequate staffing and ensuring that children are receiving the best education possible.

As for Congress, its popularity might improve if its members resolved to stop playing politics with religion and focused on the things that really matter to Americans.

Issues:

Prayer at Government Events and Legislative Meetings

Tags:

Rep. Tim Walberg, legislative prayer, Congress, school boards

AU National Staff Tours Florida

corbin — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:37:50 +0000

Beth Corbin

In The Field

Amendment 8 will: • Harm Religious Communities • Harm Civil Rights • Harm Church-State Separation • Harm Our Children • Misuse Your Tax Dollars

AU's Legislative Director Maggie Garrett and Assistant Field Director for Religious Outreach Rev. Steven Baines just completed the first, of what will be many, tours in Florida. Their purpose in traveling to Florida was to share Americans United's concerns about Florida's Amendment 8, that will appear on the ballot in November.

The goal of Amendment 8 is to allow taxpayer money to flow to religious schools and houses of worship. Passage of the Amendment would strip the religious freedom protections currently enshrined in the Florida Constitution, which would allow for the direct funding of religious organizations that provide faith-based social services, and open the door to taxpayer funded vouchers for religious schools. Amendment 8 would harm Florida's religious communities, Florida’s children, civil rights, and church-state separation.

Starting in Ft. Lauderdale, Maggie traveled west and then north, sharing AU's concerns about Amendment 8 with hundreds of church-state separation supporters in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami/Dade County area, and chapter members and supporters in Naples. Steven began his journey in Jacksonville, meeting with Jacksonville and Clay County AU members and supporters, and chapter members and supporters in Flagler County. The two national staffers ended their tour at a large event in Sarasota, and finally in the Tampa Bay/St. Petersburg area.

The challenges in Florida will be great, but AU chapter members and supporters certainly seem ready for the task.

Issues:

The Faith-Based Initiative & Government Funding of Religious Social Service Providers, Vouchers, Tuition Tax Credits and Deductions, Other Government Aid to Religious Schools

Tags:

Chapters:

South Pinellas County

‘Fiendishly Clever’: States Use Backdoor Vouchers To Fund Private Religious Schools

brown — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:58:28 +0000

Simon Brown

Wall of Separation

Neo-voucher programs, now operating in eight states, do little beyond funnel public money away from the neediest public school students toward religious schools and the students currently enrolled there.

It seems there is a universal rule for promoting school voucher schemes: “If at first you don’t succeed, lie, lie again.”

An excellent expose published by The New York Times explains how some states have been able to advance their “school choice” agenda despite court rulings that have blocked aid to religious schools in the past.

According to the front-page report, the most effective backdoor voucher ploy came courtesy of then-Arizona state Rep. Trent Franks, who helped create Arizona’s tuition tax-credit program, which was the first of its kind. The program is pretty simple: individuals and corporations that give money to private school tuition-assistance programs can receive a tax credit.

But the credits are just a disguise for public subsidies of religious education, and the disguise has worked. The Arizona legislature adopted the program in 1997, and the U.S. Supreme Court scuttled a lawsuit against it last year on technical grounds. (Five justices – you can guess which ones -- said the plaintiffs challenging the program didn’t have “standing” to sue.)

Franks, now a U.S. congressman, told the Times, “The teachers’ union called [the tax credit scheme] fiendishly clever.”

Thanks to the high court’s stance and big-bucks political backing from the American Federation for Children and the American Legislative Exchange Council, it seems likely that `tax-credit schemes will multiply – and that’s a very bad thing for anyone who values church-state separation and a strong public education system.

The Times piece details how these neo-voucher programs, now operating in eight states, do little beyond funnel public money away from the neediest public school students toward religious schools and the students currently enrolled there.

In Georgia, for example, a tuition tax-credit program costs the state about $50 million annually. The idea, supposedly, was to help students escape failing public schools – but that’s not what happens. The schools admit as much.

“A very small percentage of that money will be set aside for a needs-based scholarship fund,” Wyatt Bozeman, an administrator at Gwinnett Christian Academy, said, according to the Times. “The rest of the money will be channeled to the family that raised it.”

Another official with that school told the Times that the students who benefit most from the programs are those who have “friends, relatives or even corporations that pay Georgia income tax” because they can all get big tax breaks for their donations.

At a time when states are more in need of revenue than at any point since the 1930s, potential resources are being forfeited in part so private schools can spread creationism, the Times reported.

Most of the private schools in Georgia, for example, are religious in nature, and they use texts that fit with their belief system. The Times said a widely used sixth-grade science book omits evolution entirely while preaching creationism, and an economics book used in some high schools there says that the Antichrist will someday control everything that is bought and sold.

Still another high school science text, produced by a Florida publisher for use in private schools, says that “much variety within the human race has developed from the eight people who left the Ark,” the Times said.

Americans United has opposed voucher schemes for years, and this Times story is consistent with what we’ve been warning. States that claim the only way students can be “saved” from failing public schools is by sending them (and their money) to private schools are not only weakening public education, they’re also funding religion.

Doing that isn’t helping anyone, except self-serving lawmakers, right-wing ideologues and sectarian lobbyists who hate public schools and want to indoctrinate children.

The New York Times has performed an extraordinary public service by exposing the tuition tax-credit scam. Legislators who push this proposal now can’t claim they don’t know what it’s really all about.

Issues:

Vouchers, Tuition Tax Credits and Deductions

Tags:

Rep. Trent Franks, tuition tax credits

‘A Fundamental Principle’: HHS Secretary Sebelius Affirms Church-State Separation

boston — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:57:56 +0000

Rob Boston

Wall of Separation

It’s always good to hear a prominent official in government acknowledge the separation of church and state as a 'fundamental principle of our democracy.'

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, spoke on Friday to graduates of Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute – despite efforts to by ultra-conservatives to gag her.

Members of the Catholic far right were outraged that Sebelius, a Catholic and and advocate of reproductive rights, would be invited to speak at a Catholic university. But school officials believed that a high-ranking member of the Obama administration’s cabinet might have something valuable to say to the graduates and refused to rescind the invitation. (Among those complaining was Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., who called the invitation to Sebelius "shocking.")

Sebelius had just started her speech when three protestors stood up and started yelling. This was pretty much inevitable, and the men were soon removed from the room. Sebelius continued with her remarks.

Much of what she said was typical of commencement addresses, including an exhortation to graduates to pursue public service and work for the common good while not being afraid to take on some risks and challenges.

Sebelius then shifted into a different area.

“When I was in junior high, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was running for president,” Sebelius said. “I wasn’t old enough to vote, but it was the first national campaign I really remember. Some of then-Senator Kennedy’s opponents attacked him for his religion, suggesting that electing the first Catholic president would undermine the separation of church and state, a fundamental principle of our democracy. The furor grew so loud that Kennedy chose to deliver a speech about his beliefs just seven weeks before the election.”

Sebelius continued, “In that talk to Protestant ministers, Kennedy talked about his vision of religion and the public square, and said he believed in an America, and I quote, ‘where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.’”

She added, “Kennedy was elected president on November 8, 1960. And more than 50 years later, that conversation, about the intersection of our nation’s long tradition of religious freedom with policy decisions that affect the general public, continues. Contributing to these debates will require more than just the quantitative skills you have learned at Georgetown. It will also require the ethical skills you have honed – the ability to weigh different views, see issues from other points of view, and in the end, follow your own moral compass.”

There are a couple of things to say about this.

First, it’s always good to hear a prominent official in government acknowledge the separation of church and state as a “fundamental principle of our democracy.” Religious Right leaders have created an entire cottage industry to disparage the very idea of church-state separation as un-historical and un-American, and, sadly, some political leaders agree with them. It’s good to see Sebelius set them right.

Second, Sebelius reminds us of the importance of JFK’s words that no church has the right to expect government to embrace, promote and impose its theology. I’d like to think that this portion of the speech was a subtle reminder to the Catholic bishops (and people like former presidential candidate Rick Santorum), who seem to think the federal government should be the enforcer of their dogma.

Finally, Sebelius’ call to “follow your own moral compass” on these issues is crucial. Note that she didn’t say “religious compass.” For many, morals do spring from religion – but not for all. More importantly, those who do have a faith may find it necessary from time to time to dissent from denominational teachings – especially when you’re a political leader determining policy for 300 million people representing every imaginable perspective about religion.

Sebelius invoked the words of John F. Kennedy, our nation’s only Catholic president, to make the point that government is not, and cannot be, the vehicle to enforce religious rules. The Catholic bishops may not like what she said, but I suspect millions of Americans do.

I’m glad Sebelius wasn’t shouted down by extremists and theocrats who fear what she had to say.

Issues:

Lobbying by Churches and Religious Groups, Other Issues regarding Churches and Politics, Reproductive Health & Conscience Clauses for Religious Objectors

Tags:

Kathleen Sebelius, Georgetown University, Department of Health and Human Services, John F. Kennedy