This week a federal appeals court in California ruled against a public school math teacher who claimed his right to free speech had been violated by his employer. The employer is the Poway Unified School District of San Diego, which ordered the math teacher to remove some banners with religious messages from his classroom.
The very large banners displayed messages such as "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," "God Bless America," and "God Shed His Grace On Thee,"which the teacher said were about America's religious heritage (and this has to do with mathematics, how?). To complicate matters, the school district had allowed a science teacher to display Tibetan Buddhist prayer flags in her classroom. This discrepancy allegedly showed a pattern of hostility toward "Judeo-Christian" religion and favoritism to other religions.
Predictably, a Christian newsletter headlined its story about the ruling "Buddha's fine, God is not." This reaction points to a long standing, and willful, refusal to understand the First Amendment. And it's not that hard to understand.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are two clauses there, the "establishment" clause and the "free exercise" clause. It's the establishment clause that is most willfully misunderstood.
"Establishment," in the jargon of 18th century British common law, refers to the practice of adopting an official national religion. For example, for a long time the Catholic Church was the established religion of most European countries. Established religions enjoy the benefit of the government's financial support, meaning they get tax money to build churches and pay priests. The government may also promote that religion's prayers and practices or require citizens to take part in its rituals.
Europe suffered generations of religious warfare as various factions attempted to replace kings and queens who favored another religion with a monarch who favored theirs. By preventing the federal government from establishing religion, the authors of the Constitution hoped to discourage religious factions from starting new religious wars here. They also wanted to insure that a large religious faction that gained a majority of votes in Congress could not write laws telling Americans how to pray and worship.
The First Amendment itself speaks only to the federal government. It did not prohibit state governments from establishing religions, and for a time some of them did. However, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Eventually a series of Supreme Court decisions interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that state governments may not deprive citizens of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments), either.
So, way back in 1947, the Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that public school districts -- which receive state tax money and which are partly administered by state governments -- could not use the taxpayer's money for religious instruction or to promote religious beliefs. However, school districts could choose to support parochial school students by, for example, subsidizing buses to and from church-run schools. Although the Everson ruling has been tweaked a bit over the years, that's pretty much where the Court still stands.
Because public school teachers are public employees, they may not take advantage of their access to children to try to indoctrinate children in any religious belief. Put another way --
Public schools -- meaning teachers, administrators, school board members -- may not try to influence the religious beliefs and practices of students.
However, that doesn't mean religion is banned from school. If some students organize a prayer circle or religious study group, the Supreme Court says the school administration must allow this as long as it doesn't interfere with classes. However, teachers may not recruit students into a prayer circle or religious study group, and they may not lead prayers in classrooms, because that would amount to the government influencing the religious beliefs and practices of students.
I mean, is this really that hard to understand? If you are confused please speak up, but I don't see this as rocket science.
Further, all mention of religion does not have to be stricken from the curriculum. Students may be taught about religion's place in history and culture in lessons about history and culture. Religious texts, including the Bible, may be studied as literature. Students may be taught about the world's religions in the context of studying the world's civilizations. But there is a difference between teaching, say, something about Hinduism in a lesson on India and trying to persuade children to be Hindus.
Again, as long as the teacher is not trying to influence the students' personal religious beliefs or opinions, including something about religion in a lesson usually is not a problem, although it would be hard to fit into a math class.
I have read the appeals court decision, and it says the science teacher with the Tibetan prayer flags brought the flags to school as part of a lesson about the Himalayas. Although one flag has a small picture of the Buddha, the teacher said she did not know if the flags had any religious significance. She said she had been told they represent the elements. Further,
She explained that she uses the flags as part of her discussion of fossils found on and near Mount Everest because the flags are authentic--bought in Nepal near Mount Everest--and are typically purchased by climbers to put "at the top of Mount Everest when they reach the peak." She described how she typically shows a video of scientists taking cores samples on Everest and uses the flags to further stimulate the interest of her students. She said that the flags "represent climbing a mountain" and accomplishing "an amazing goal."
So, while associating Tibetan prayer flags with a lesson on fossils may be a stretch, it doesn't sound as if the teacher was using the flags to indoctrinate kids to become little lamas. She was basically just using them as pretty shiny things to get the kids' attention. I assume any writing on the flags would be in Tibetan, so it is doubtful any of the students could read them.
The math teacher sued the school for violating his right to free speech. But, the Court said, the teacher is perfectly free to express his opinions on religion on sidewalks, in parks, in chat rooms, at his own dinner table, and in countless other locations. However, as a public school employee there are limits to what he can say in a classroom to children. The school district was within its authority to tell him to take down the banners.
Again, we go over and over and over this here in the U.S., and every time a court orders some teacher or administrator to stop trying to indoctrinate children with personal religious beliefs, religious people here start screaming about how God has been thrown out of classrooms and their rights are being violated. Just read some of the comments at BeliefNet.
To me, the reasons for the establishment clause are clear, and the differences between violating it and not violating it are not that fuzzy. Yet a large part of the American public will not understand this, and I think it's because they don't want to.
Barbara:
Your post is invaluable for it’s legal, as well as religious, clarity. It has been my experience that the people who scream loudest about “God” being banned; are the same people who have screamed that any other than their religion is false and should NEVER be allowed in public school.
Your clarity will fall on their rather restricted ears and you will be defined, by them, as a liberal snake; but, your post is still valid. May All Beings have Happiness!
Public schools should be theologically neutral and all religious iconography banned from the classroom unless it specifically relates to the educational material (i.e. comparative religion). I don’t see the need for Tibetan prayer flags any more than this Gentleman’s God posters.
I agree, Wayne, that it would have been better all around if the Tibetan flags had not been there in that science classroom in the first place. But clearly, the teacher who displayed them had no religious intent and sounds, if anything, like she was trying out a cross-disciplinary lesson. Unfortunately, such subtleties are lost on the religious right.
I think that brouhaha kicked up by fundamentalist Protestants (and to some degree Roman Catholics and Mormons too) over the sidelining of their beliefs on evolution, sexuality, women’s right to choose etc. in the US and in Europe is a sign of a profound societal shift. I think they have suddenly woken up to the fact that not everybody automatically respects their views without question anymore. When your view of the world is top-down and black-and-white that can be hard to take. Christianity has much to offer the world but fundamentalism of any sort does not. I’d like to think that the erosion of fundamentalist views in the West could see religions of all sorts (not just Christianity) develop in a more positive way – become smaller, leaner, fitter and more focussed on what really matter and less on group influence and politics.
The growth of Buddhism to the West, I think, is a sign of people’s wish to move toward more rational and reasonable belief systems. I know that in the US particularly, it may be difficult to see Christian fundamentalist as fading away but, with hindsight, it is clear that their beliefs are no longer mainstream compared with say 40-50 years ago. They may shout loudly but I think fewer and fewer people are listening.
It is so sad that we live in a society where it is politically incorrect to discuss very important topics like religion, politics, philosophy, sex, etc. Speaking of anything of substance or beyond superficial doesn’t seem to be attractive to most of society, and such verbal behavior may preclude friendship or advancement in one’s profession. Ignorance rules. Freedom has it’s boundaries with religion having very narrow ones. Are not core values like forgivness, tolerance, compassion, knowledge and wisdom fundamental teachings of all major religions?
I’m not sure what society you’re living in, but I find myself discussing those things all day long. The issue here is not whether these things can be discussed, but that public school teachers should not be allowed to indoctrinate their students with their personal religious opinions. Do you disagree?
We indoctrinate current students; society, with deduction. Science; the other side -the same thing. Beliefs and acceptations taught as facts and ultimate truth -from the power of deduction. Reduction -religion being seen as the negative influence. Yet ultimately the same thing. What river divides that does not come back together?
From what I’ve read in this, I feel that the math teacher clearly put abig religious chip on is shoulder, whereas the science teacher was merely displaying a cultural symbol of the Tibetan/Nepali cultural and geographic area. I think that the math teacher knew that his posters would cause a stir, and put them up for just that purpose–my guess is if that the science teacher was asked to take down the prayer flags, he/she would have quietl done so. This to me shows the disparity between the two situations in this story! Thanks as always Barbara.
John
Barbara, I really appreciate this very clear presentation of the First Amendment & related legal history — thanks for that. And agree that an understanding of the Two Truths (typically a long journey!) is essential for working out a skillful view of how western science is or is not in alignment with Buddha Dharma. I also agree that to blur the distinction between what is commonly thought of as “religion” and what is commonly thought of as “science” would likely, given the current U.S. political climate, have undesirable consequences.
I do however find myself in agreement with some of what epi13 has expressed. In particular, to the extent that scientific education (and western science more generally) is rooted in a wholly-unquestioned realist paradigm — to this extent it is at odds with any of the non-realist Buddhist philosophical traditions, e.g. Madhyamaka, Yogacara/Cittamatra.
How cool it would be to create a science curriculum, for public schools, that presented western science in the context of age-appropriate instruction in the Two Truths! (And could this be done in a way that didn’t violate the First Amendment?)
p.s. hope that last question didn’t seem like a stupid one
Obviously we can’t be teaching/advocating Buddhist practice per se, any more than the guy with the banners can’t be advocating Christianity.
But …. seems like a Two-Truths type of (analytic as well as introspective) investigation could be a very legitimate aspect of a philosophy of science or philosophy of knowledge component to science eduction — in which the foundational assumptions that are usually hidden, are instead rendered transparent.
This has to be the most clearly and englightening (in the sense that it presents a cogent view of the issue of separation of church and state) writing I have read here.
“…Yet a large part of the American public will not understand this, and I think it’s because they don’t want to.” Exactly, they are being selective in their reasoning.
This confusion between faith positions and science is definitely part of the problem.
Science is just checking what you think against what can be checked, measured and tested. It does not matter if “reality” is an illusion, it is a consistent one.
The “truths” of belief, on the other hand, are by definition not checked or verified and cannot validly claim the name “truth”. Insisting such stuff be part of science is contradictory. Such “truths” cannot be imposed because they are not universally agreed and no test can be made to decide which truth is true. If they could be tested then they would be scientific positions.
RE: “Science is just checking what you think against what can be checked, measured and tested. It does not matter if “reality” is an illusion, it is a consistent one.”
DanDare,
Yeah, this is pretty much a perfect rendering of the realist & scientific materialist position, unquestioningly assumed to be just “how things are.”
I’d suggest having a look at B. Alan Wallaces’s A Science Of Consciousness for an introduction to an alternative perspective.
Basically, what at least certain schools of Buddhist philosophy point out (and establish via analytic and introspective “experiments” of all kinds) — and what is very much in alignment with quantum mechanics — is that phenomena arise in dependence upon various causes and conditions, and one of these “causes and conditions” is our conceptual designation of them.
In other words, “subject” and “object” arise interdependently — a view quite at odds with one which is based upon a purely representational theory of perception (i.e. the notion that our sense organs basically function as perfect “mirrors” to an “external reality”) and hence the possibility of a wholly “neutral observer” of the phenomena of “the world.”
This doesn’t mean that these schools put no stock in “inter-subjective agreement” — on the contrary, this is often taken as a criteria for relative truth; but without falling into a kind of naive realism.
oops, the link to the B. Alan Wallace essay doesn’t seem to be working. The full title is “A Science Of Consciousness: Buddhism (1), The Modern World (0)” — which is available online as a pdf.
I disagree; science is valid within its own sphere of activity, which is to gather data on physical phenomena and create theories about how they work. Understanding phenomena to be an illusion doesn’t invalidate science, it’s saying the reach of science has limits. The problem comes when people refuse to look beyond those limits.