religion in public schools

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of anti-religion actions within the United States

Rachel Lu, writing in The Federalist reports: “Christians are turning into the sort of minority it is socially acceptable to despise and marginalize. Ordinary rules of civility and social inclusion don’t seem to apply to them. We believe in free speech, except not for Christians. Freedom of association doesn’t necessarily apply to them. Rules of civility and decency are more optional when Christians are involved. Shall we even pretend that freedom of religion is a cherished American commitment in our day? When a group is ‘approved’ for this kind of marginalizing treatment, it’s hard to predict where it will stop.”

The other portion of America’s Judeo-Christian ethic, Judaism, is facing equal challenges. Conservative Review notes: “The far-left has in fact long been a breeding ground for anti-Semitism.” The National Interest notes that “mainstream liberals in America have been reluctant to call out the anti-Semites wreaking havoc within the ranks of the Left…why have they allowed the cancer to metastasize this long?”

The problem is particularly acute in schools. Even the normally liberal ACLU has criticized the excessive restrictions on religion in public schools, explaining: “The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools ‘religion-free zones’ or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong.”

Examples of the ridiculous degree to which religion is treated with hostility in public schools are provided by the Catholic League:

“A student at [Florida’s] Yulee High School ended the school’s morning announcement with ‘God Bless America.’ This caused the American Humanist Association to contact the school and the Nassau County School District to warn school officials that saying ‘God Bless America’ over the school’s public address system was ‘inappropriate and unlawful.’

Generic Sildenafil Citrate, like any other drug, will soon be available at buying online viagra offline as well as they don’t have to worry about their children or job. This involves the insertion of splints in to the penis for the purposes tadalafil overnight shipping of intercourse. An impotent shop for viagra cheap man cannot give rise to progeny. You will gain harder and fuller erection and last longer in bed, a medicine has emerged in the natural market that is reliable as well as effective. sildenafil buy “The California State University Stanislaus chapter of Chi Alpha, a Christian student organization, was deactivated because the group insisted that its leaders be Christians. The university said it would no longer recognize the group due to a non-discrimination executive order that prohibited student organizations from excluding anyone, including in leadership roles. ‘What they cannot be is faith-based where someone has to have a profession of faith to be that leader” said university vice president Tim Lynch.’Students argued that everyone was welcome to attend their meetings, regardless of their religious belief, but that group leaders were expected to lead prayers and perform other faith-based duties that it would be impossible for someone of a different faith to complete.”

Religious schools are also being attacked. Holly Scheer, also writing in the Federalist, describes an eventually withdrawn attempt in California that would have attacked religious schools:

“People used to expect that attending something sponsored by religious organization required abiding by mores and behavior that religious body professes. There was a simple option for avoiding the ideas or practices of a belief system you don’t agree with: don’t frequent their space. This courteous expectation naturally applied to all religions and expressions of faith. California [attempted] to end this system of free association that allows people to define their local and religious cultures. California Senate Bill 1146 (SB 1146)…[sought] to limit the religious exemptions from federal Title IX regulations that colleges and universities use for hiring instructors, teaching classes, and conducting student services in line with their faith.”

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reported “Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.”And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools.”

There is a profound belief on the part of the Progressive left that that freedom flows not from the inherent rights of the people, as clearly stated in America’s founding documents, but from the government. Anything that limits government’s influence, in this view, must be reduced. That is why totalitarian states frequently attack religion.

Is atheism becoming America’s official state religion?

As Christians celebrate the Christmas season and Jews observe Chanukah, the usual disputes over the recognition of those holidays in the public sector are expected, but there is a growing new dimension to the legal battles.

Throughout American history, there has always been a vigilance, since the Constitution was ratified, against one creed taking precedence over others. However, despite the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a preferred theology, there is increasing evidence that atheism is taking a prohibited place as an official state doctrine.

Examples abound, far beyond the usual arguments over holiday decorations in government buildings.

Examples abound. Heartland reports that Montana officials have proposed the exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program.

“A draft of the rules by the state Revenue Department excluded religious schools from receiving funding through [a scholarship] program. If the rule stands, it will set a precedent calling existing Montana tax-credit programs into question, “because these programs also allow donations to go to religious groups,” Smith said at the hearing. “These tax credit programs include the college contribution credit, the qualified endowment credit, the dependent care system credit, and the elderly care credit. According to the department’s position that tax credits constitute public funds, these programs would also be unconstitutional…According to officials at the state Department of Revenue, religious schools were excluded in order to adhere to the state Constitution, which has provisions prohibiting direct or indirect funding of religious organizations.” Opponents of the move say it violates the U.S. Constitution.”

The American Civil Liberties Union notes that some of the restrictions against religious activity in public schools are wrong.

“The Constitution permits much private religious activity in and about the public schools. Unfortunately, this aspect of constitutional law is not as well known as it should be. Some say that the Supreme Court has declared the public schools “religion-free zones” or that the law is so murky that school officials cannot know what is legally permissible. The former claim is simply wrong. And as to the latter, while there are some difficult issues, much has been settled. As a result, in some school districts some of these rights are not being observed.”
The wise decision before taking any drug should be used only to treat or prevent infections which are proven to provide effective and timely results, and comply with the same strict standards of quality, safety and effectiveness as original order cialis pills pharmaceutical products. The effectiveness of this oral medicine has cialis generic india appeared as the most accepted form of therapy. Latest technologies allow teenagers to accumulate all the mandatory information upon this deeprootsmag.org generic levitra online topic. Systemic conditions such as psoriasis can have a direct effect on our emotions, especially the self esteem. viagra fast
The trend towards restricting traditional religions has affected the military. The military newspaper Stars and Stripes recently reported the concern of Ron Crews, a retired Army colonel and chaplain. “There has been a growing concern about chaplains being able to continue to minister what I would call ‘the full counsel of God’ in their ministries.” The article notes that “For 240 years, since the U.S. Army’s founding in June 1775, chaplains have been welcome in the military. Generals from George …to George C. Marshall considered chaplains indispensable to a unit’s emotional and spiritual well-being…” In recent years, Carew notes, “Washington has issued wave after wave of new regulations, some of which conflict with many chaplains’ long-held religious beliefs…[he cites] multiple cases, in which he contends chaplains have been censored or had their careers effectively ended for espousing their beliefs.”

Atheism as a creed is a growing practice in the United States. In some ways, it is, rather than merely an absence of religion, a philosophical practice that increasingly takes on the attributes of faith-based sects. In 2013, the Huffington Post described how, on Sunday mornings, atheists in Houston gather together for services:

“Sunday mornings at Houston Oasis may have the look and feel of a church, but there’s no cross, Bible, hymnal or stained glass depictions of Jesus. There’s also nary a trace of doctrine, dogma or theology. But the 80 or so attendees at this new weekly gathering for nonbelievers come for many of the same reasons that others pack churches in this heavily Christian corner of the Bible … inside the conference room in a nondescript office building on the city’s west side, it’s hard to ignore the structural similarities to a Sunday morning church service. There is live music played and performed by members that is intended to spur reflection as well as entertain; a collection is taken up in a passed wicker basket.”

Huffington also described the appointment of an atheist chaplain at Stanford “There’s an atheist chaplain at StanfordJohn Figdor has a degree from Harvard Divinity School and he does what chaplains do. He counsels those in need and visits the sick. And what’s more, he’s welcomed as part of the Office of Religious Life.”

A research project from the Liberty Institute finds that “Attacks on religious liberty in the public arena are perhaps the most widely recognized and one of the fastest growing forms of hostility to religion in the United States today.”

The current battles in religious affairs in the public square can be substantially distinguished from past precedent. Unlike prior disagreements, they do not involve one religious sect (Catholics vs. Protestants, Christians vs. Jews, etc.) against another, as much as they do a growing atheist philosophy that opposes any place for faith systems in public life.

The complete elimination of religion in public life does not have legal precedent to stand on. In fact, it runs afoul of the First Amendment mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which prohibits favoring one creed over another, since the forced absence of any religion is essentially the forced placement of atheism as a preferred or established creed.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.