Pluralism and its Affects on Society

Acts of Faith written by Eboo Patel tells us of how diversity within culture and religion can truly affect ones world. Patel says, “Only the smallest part of humanity wishes and acts upon the destruction of others. The pluralists are far larger. Those of us who believe in a world where we live together, we're far larger. The problem is we haven't made our case compelling across the world yet.”(1) This is the reason why here in America and all across the world we see problems when it comes to diversity and why people with different religions collide and look at each other in a negative way, because of this small part of humanity wishing and acting destructively to others. For example Muslims and Christians, both of these religions have many similarities yet the people that come from these religions differ in their culture and how they were raised, and because of the negative connotations of the opposite ethnicity continued to be taught in their “traditional culture” this is why many individuals today have a different (at times negative) image of other religions/cultures.

Yet as Eboo explains change can be most affected when it comes internally. Although he also explains that change comes socially as well. He explains how the pluralistic views can really help society if people shared these ideas. Fighting or calling people names because of differences should not happen it is not relevant because we all have different views but yet we are all still human. Patel says in an interview “what if the worlds 1 billion Catholics and 1.2 billion Muslims decided that their work together in the world was to be ending malaria that the energy currently spent on suspicion on ignorance and hatred was entirely devoted to that people devoted to prevent this disease that is where we should spend our energy the next five years.”(2) Patel’s message in this excerpt truly gives us the idea of how a pluralistic approach would benefit two different “societies/religions” and could possibly bring a cure to something that has been killing thousands of individuals. The animosity between the Catholics and Muslims throughout the years has done nothing but harm to one another and to the world. If they spent all of these years working together, the world would be a much better place.

The idea and message that Eboo is trying to explain is the concept of Religious Pluralism. His thought it that if Religions take a pluralistic approach at life and situations that occur in day to day activity people of different backgrounds would live in harmony with each other. M. Basye Holland-Shuey explains in perfect words, "Pluralism...holds to one's own faith, and at the same time, engages other faiths in learning about their path and how they want to be understood.... Pluralism and dialogue are the means for building bridges and relationships that create harmony and peace on our planet home."

Works Cited

(1)http://www.betterworldheroes.com/pages-p/patel-quotes.htm

(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znm71XGPsng&feature=related

(3)http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur1.htm

Nothing In Particular

A little background: According to a recent Pew survey, more than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion. 84% of Americans claim a religious affiliation, Christians topping the list and representing 78% of the religious pie, with Protestants gobbling up 51 % of that slice, trailed by Evangelical churches at 26%. The remainder of the slices and slivers are divided up as follows: Other religions 5%, with “Jewish religion” leading the way at 1.7%. Notables in category are Buddhism at 0.7%, and “New-age” at 0.4%. At the bottom of the ledger, the “unaffiliated are tallied, with the “Nothing in particulars” leading the way at 12%, followed by agnostics at 2.4%. Limping home last are the atheists, subsisting on a meager 1.6% slice of their slice of nothing. Pluralism and religion is messy business.

Eboo Patel, in the introduction to his book, Acts of Faith, writes: “Change happens internally before it takes place in the world.” Later in chapter one, Patel quotes James Baldwin: “One can only face in others what one can face in oneself. On this confrontation depends the measure of our wisdom and compassion.” I agree on both counts, if what is meant is that change occurs first within individuals. I am troubled though by a process, or sequence of processes that would allow for this change within. Can this change occur in the person alone, or does it occur, as Mr. Patel believes, in the act of pluralizing religion? Could it, on the other hand, be possible that this change is predicated on a larger complex of interactions, involving personal, behavioral, cultural and social systems (Wilber)?

With change first occurring internally and I so assume within the individual and religion being such a huge part of the American landscape, what role does religion play in affecting this change? Can religion alone, even when grouped and pluralized, put into motion a chain of events who’s outcome is this internal change, or does religion by its nature truncate the type of self-knowledge needed to manifest this change? Sri Aurobindo thinks that, “For the religious devotee it is a grave mistake to try to remake others instead of remaking himself,” and according to social scientist V.M. Rozin, Aurobindo also “has a low opinion of social movements, regarding them as subconscious and obscure” (Rozin, 2008). Where does this leave us?

Mr. Patel thinks that individual change can occur in the incubator of religious pluralism and with that hope in mind he runs an interfaith program, the goal being to get young participants to face, understand and know themselves, so that they can face, understand and know each other. Will this process lead to tolerance and acceptance all they way around? I hope so. While I’m hoping, I hope that this program also results in a tolerance and acceptance that transcends religion, allowing for kind acceptance in the greater world.

References

Patel, E. (2007) Acts of Faith. Beacon Press, Boston, Mass.
Rozin, V.M. (2008) Esoteric Ideas on the Transformation of Man and Society in
Comparison with Utopian and Social Projects.
Statistics on Religion in America Report: Pew Forum on Religion and Public life.
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Wilber, K (2007) Integral Spirituality. Integral Books. Boston & London.
　
　

Blurring the Lines

When George W. Bush became President of the United States many conservative evangelists rejoiced. Bush opened up the door between the government and religious groups and eventually the line between church and state was blurred. He set up funding groups so that conservative christian religious charities and organizations could receive millions of dollars in grants, while . This angered many of the secular groups who were starting to feel the loss of the money that was usually sanctioned off for them. It also brought to the public's attention that although the Christian groups were being funded, many of the people who were counselors and in high positions were not qualified. This angered many people because they wanted to make sure that if these programs were being funded by the government that the people in charge were people who were qualified. However, in most cases the counselors were not qualified. “Religious drug treatment counselors wouldn't be forced to undergo training or to obtain regular state licenses.” (Goldberg, pg 114) The only training that they needed was the be a Christian and belong to a church. Religion is personal and should not be entered in the government's rules and regulations.
This kind of blurring of the lines between Church and State is something that should never had have happened. I was raised in a Catholic and extremely conservative home. This has made it difficult for me at first to understand why there was a nee for the separation of church and state. However, as I have seen firsthand, the government should not force religious views on the American public. Issues such as gay marriage are among the top of the list because no ones rights should be taken away, even if everyone does not agree with it. We are all created equal, and no one should have to ability to enforce religious views and morals upon the ones who are not of that religion.

Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. Print.

A Man’s Right to Die: Humanists View of Suicide Ethics

Humanists in major contrast to religious people see death and dying from a completely different stand point. Pretty much every religion in the world offers a promise of an afterlife whether it be eternity in heaven or reincarnation. Humanists however regard promises of life after death as illusory and harmful, especially when one must live by certain rules to ensure that life after death. Though they do not deny any man’s right to believe in an afterlife, they see believing in promises of eternal salvation or eternal damnation as hindering mans ability to focus on present concerns, achieve self-actualization, and bettering the future of the earth itself. Given the fact that many humanists see believing in an after-life as counterproductive, the concern of a man’s right to suicide whether by euthanasia and assisted suicide has created much conflict between humanism and the religious sphere. What reasons do humanists have to believe that it is a humane value to let a person end his or her own life when they choose?
As part of an open democratic society in which every individual has the right to civil liberties, many Humanists believe that just as a man has a right to live he has a right to die. Chetwynd (2004) makes an interesting comparison about regarding human life the same way one would regard owning property. Not to imply that human life is like a piece of property, but many people do see their lives as their own and feel that they should have full control over how they want to live. Many Humanists would argue that to deprive an individual’s right to do what he or she wants with his or her life would go against a fully humanist democratic society. Also in the article Chetwynd discusses the case of a 42 year old woman living with a motor neuron disease, which brings up many cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide being centered on individuals living with chronically painful terminal illnesses. Humanists believe that every individual has a right to life, happiness, advancement, and freedom. If an individual’s ability to live happily and advance is hindered by illness a humanist might see this individual as fully having the right to decide whether they want to live on. And to deprive their right to make such a choice would be to deprive them of their freedom.
Another article by Colby (2009) discusses the complexity of the ethics behind an individual’s right to die and how this is largely dictated by society. Society passes laws that the majority of the people agree on. However Colby argues that the law should not have the ability to know what is right at the end of a person’s life. That society trying to tell someone what is the right choice at the end of his or her life is unconstitutional. The article also points that citizen polls reveal the majority in American society want to have access to assistance in dying. Whether anyone in the general American public can agree as to whether right to suicide is ethical or unethical, can they agree that it is unconstitutional from that individual’s perspective?
In the United States many cases of assisted suicide or individuals fighting for the right to assisted suicide have been brought to court. A few cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court but were quickly overruled (Colby, 2009). In the highly religious American political sphere, assisted suicide is viewed as a criminal act that devalues the sacredness of human life. This view of course is a reflection of Christian domination in American politics. Cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide have created conflict in the political sphere especially when supporters have fought just to bring to the Supreme Court. However the question still stands about the ethics of a person’s right to suicide especially when living with a terminal illness. Humanists have given fairly valid reasons for supporting an mans right to die, however whether freedom of that right is granted will depend on how the majority of society views it.


References
Chetwynd, S. B. (2004) Right to life right to die and assisted suicide. Journal of Applied
Philosophy, 21(2), 173-182. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from Religion and
Philosophy database.
Colby, B. (2009). Let’s talk about dying. The Humanist, 4-6. Retrieved November 25, 2009 from
Religion and Philosophy database.

Zen For Life

For some, Zen Buddhism is not just a religion, it’s a way of life; however, the center of this religion is, in fact, the way that one lives their lives through what is considered the three essentials: body, speech, and mind. Living through these things leads to an inner peace on multiple levels that can seem to be lacking in other religions at times. Why?

Because Zen Buddhism focuses on the things that we use most in our lives—body, speech, and mind—it could be considered as taking our most basic of natures and applying them to a visible sphere of thought and action. Often times, I think that the way humans work is that they act on impulse, not thinking through their actions and what consequences they will cause—be it good or bad. In everyday life, humans can become stressed or sick with a variety or ailments, causing them to lose the balance that is supposed to be kept between the three essentials.

“A simple message of the teaching is that much of the pain, suffering, confusion, and contradiction you encounter in your own life is simply caused by not paying attention to what you have closest to you from the beginning and using it well: speech, body, and mind.” (Snyder) In this passage, we can see that this simple message is very focused on the fact that body, speech, and mind are the roads to keeping the base of your life. It is an essential of what the Zen Buddhism is about, but it is not a belief that what will save you from pain and suffering is that which comes from a higher power. “…adherents are drawn to this 2,500 year old “new” religion because it offers a way to deal with suffering…” (Finney)

Where it does begin is with the individual themselves. The individual must decide whether or not they want their suffering to end, and if they do, then they can apply the knowledge learned from Zen Buddhism to this. While religion often gives people an inner peace of mind where they are taught to accept suffering as a test of their strength of will, it does not eliminate pain, suffering, and confusion altogether. Again, this is where Zen Buddhism comes in and allows the adherent to attain levels of peace in all areas through unity of mind, body, and speech.

If the key elements of Zen Buddhism were even applied to other religions, I believe there would be more peace attained by the adherent.


Finney, Henry. “American Zen's ‘Japan Connection’: A Critical Case Study of Zen Buddhism's Diffusion to the West”. Sociological Analysis, Vol. 52, No. 4, Religious Movements and Social Movements (Winter, 1991), pp. 379-396

Snyder, Gary. “Zen Buddhism in America (1976)”. The Real Work: Interviews & Talks, 1964-1979. New Directions Publishing Corp.

Reaching Religious Pluralism in America

As Diane Eck explains in “A New Religious America”, what America needs is “…to create a positive pluralism that builds upon our differences rather than ignores them” (Eck, 337). Although as a nation we are close, unfortunately, as of now, this is not the case. As of now, a small, loud, and persistent minority of religions don’t just ignore other religious groups, they condemn them.

The majority of Americans are more than accepting of religions other than their own or lack of one. Eck notes that, “What it means to be American is constantly being expressed in new ways as the fabric of America’s people changes” (Eck, 338). It’s part of being an American. Chicago hosted the Parliament of the World’s Religions, which was part of the 1893 World Fair (Eck, 366). The Department of Defense has had Wiccans working for them for over twenty years (Eck, 358). An American orthodox Jew was quoted saying, “…after centuries of being persecuted precisely because of the way he looks and he eats, he is for the first time in a place where it is perfectly all right for him to wear a black coat and to talk Yiddish…” (Eck, 338).

America has “…the American Buddhist Congress, the American Muslim Council, the Federation of Zoroastrians in North America, and the Jain Associations in North America,” among others (Eck, 337). These religious groups have become part of mainstream American culture. Yet they are still discriminated against by fundamental religious minorities, especially those in power. In 2003, the New York Branch of the Salvation Army set in motions to “Christianize” its social services department. A consultant requested “…a list of gay employees, discouraged the hiring of non-Christians, and demanded that all staffers fill out forms detailing their church attendance” (Goldberg, 129). Anyone who did not fit their criteria was fired and anyone who refused to give out such information was eventually driven out.

This fundamentalist minority is becoming so much of a problem that the government has recently intervened on numerous occasions. One such occasion had to do with a young girl being forced to return to public schooling, as opposed to the homeschooling she had been receiving from her mother. Her mother had spent the majority of her daughter’s teachings focusing on Bible study. A state official said “The girl’s ‘vigorous defense of her religious beliefs’ indicated that she had not been exposed to other points of view” (falwell.com). On another occasion, Salam Al-Marayati, an open and active U.S. Muslim and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, was nominated in 1999 to the National Commission on Terrorism. This was met with great hostility from the Jewish community. He was called by them a “terrorist sympathizer cloaked in a moderate’s guise” (Eck, 362). It’s noteworthy to point out that this was pre-9/11. Though he had more than enough credentials for the position, because of the outcry, his nomination was revoked.

This “vigorous defense” often leads to destructive and violent acts. A “…Lao Buddhist temple on the fringes of Rockford, Illinois, was sprayed with rifle fire and then had a pipe bomb land in the front yard…” (Eck, 340). In 1992, Muslim leaders about to pray at their Massachusetts mosque on Ramadan were hit with stones (Eck, 342). In 1999, three synagogues from a congregation over 150 years old in Sacramento were burned down (Eck, 343). Though these acts demonstrate a deep desire for separatism, what followed in each circumstance was strong connection and support for the victimized religions from religious groups other than their own. The Lao Buddhists of Rockford were immediately and publically welcomed by Urban Ministries, a Christian association. In Massachusetts, the President of the Springfield Council of Churches organized a public invitation to the mosque where Muslim leaders were hit with stones. A local rabbi spoke on television of the mosque, stating that Jews should speak out whenever there is any crime of hate. And as for the three synagogues in Sacramento, the Muslim Public Affairs Council released a statement condemning the attacks.

Adaptation is one of the most basic phenomena of biology. Those who don’t adapt will eventually become extinct. Fundamentalists in America are a minority. With America having acceptance of numerous religions, fundamentalists see themselves as endangered. They are afraid of becoming extinct. And with programs such as “Partners in Dialogue,” they should be (Eck, 370). By accepting other religions, religions have made more friends and allies than enemies, hence making their religion stronger. Fundamentalists must give in to acceptance, for their own survival. If this doesn’t happen, they will be no more. Either way, whether they accept and adapt or condemn and fade away, religious pluralism in America is on its way to becoming a reality, with or without them.

Armstrong, Karen. Kingdom Coming. New York: Norton, 2006.

Eck, Diane L. A New Religious America. San Francisco: Harper, 1997.

Falwell, Jonathan. Is Diversity Threatening Christianity? Fallwell.com. Jerry Falwell. September 02, 2009. http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=19611.

Positive Pluralism

Although we live in a pluralistic society, hate-crimes and racism still prevail. In his writing, A New Religious America, the chapter on Bridge Building, by Eck, he claims that relational bridges must be built between religions in order to maintain a “positive pluralism” in America. America should be a place of religious freedom, creating an atmosphere in which adherents of all religions feel comfortable being American, and religious at the same time. Immigrants often come to this country, only to be outcast or victimized because of their religious practices, or to be included due to their removal from these religious practices. Eck points out that second generation immigrants, especially, tend to shed their traditional religious and cultural heritage, and replace it with an American identity, so they fit in. This change in identity is not caused by laws restricting certain religious practices, yet by an intolerant, community with a lack of understanding. Swami Chidan Saraswati, the spiritual leader of a Hindu Temple that was vandalized in the 90's, points out that “there are bad people everywhere, in every religion. It is really just fear based upon lack of understanding.” This lack of understanding among perpetrators of hate crimes is one of the issues instigating violence. In addition, violence stems from suffering. When children are abused at home, bullied at school, or are forced to join gangs for protection, they often become violent themselves. The common thread between these two causes of violent hate-crimes is that changes can be made, resulting in positive pluralism.

In order to produce understanding and tolerance among people in America, we must start in the schools. In fact, “the Dallas interfaith group demonstrates, in no place are the challenges of a new religious America felt more immediately than in the schools.” Because of the religious diversity among students in Dallas, Texas, the Religious Communities Task Force set forth a reference guide for teachers, explaining religious traditions, dietary and medical restrictions, clothing requirements, and cultural differences for every religion represented in the school district. As a future teacher, I see that this would help tremendously, by giving teachers a guide by which to gauge whether a particular students behavior is appropriate or not. Also, it provides an opportunity in the classroom to discuss students religious ideals and practices with other students who are unaware. By demonstrating a climate of tolerance and calm communication in the classroom, children are given a framework from which they can reference when faced with a similar situation in life outside of school. In Teaching Religion in America’s Public schools: A Necessary Disruption, Passe and Willox point out that “although it may be disruptive, it is necessary, even crucial, to follow the route of teaching about religion if we wish to maintain the principle of religious tolerance that undergirds the democratic republic that has evolved for more than two hundred years.”

Another important place to begin striving towards positive pluralism is on the streets, with children. After school-programs, family planning clinics, summer-school programs, and drug-rehabilitation groups should be secular, yet stress religious tolerance. They should inform children and adolescents of the dangers associated with discrimination, as well as exemplify how to interact with people of differing religious backgrounds, how to control anger, and how to debate among each other in a constructive way. By the time children reach 18 years old, morals, ideals, beliefs, practices, and attitudes are often already in place. If we focus the work of building bridges of positive pluralism among children and adolescents in America, we will produce a generation of citizens and immigrants alike, who exhibit extreme levels of tolerance and understanding in a pluralistic society, my definition of positive pluralism.


Works Cited

Eck, Diane L. A New Religious America. San Francisco: Harper, 1997.

Passe, Jeff, and Lara Willox "Teaching Religion in America's Public Schools: A Necessary Disruption." Social Studies 100.3 (2009): 102-106. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 23 Nov. 2009.

Christian Nationalism & The Judicial System

People often look towards the judicial system in America for guidance on what is right and wrong, or allowed and not allowed. The Christian right, or more specifically, Christian Nationalists, look at the judicial system as part of the moral problem in America, they see people in power in the court system as having allowed certain things to pass, like abortion and some gay rights, as a serious downturn in the morality of the country.
As much as people in the Chrisitan Nationalist movement hold rallys and speeches to get their message across, they are not really changing anything because certain laws and rights are still allowed although they may disagree and fight against it. The only way that they would really be able to change things is if one of them was in a position to change the laws or rights and disallow certain things from happening anymore. Many people have strong beliefs, Christian Nationalists just tend to make theirs a little more well known. It is believed that there were, "...two major triggers—the fallout from Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court decision that allowed abortions, and gay rights initiatives" that really made their problems with the courts known (Ramet 2005). As much as they may protest and try to convince people not to do certain things, like have an abortion, it is still legal, so they cannot truly prevent anyone from doing it. The strongest tool that Christian Nationalists have in their fight against these issues is fear and manipulation. They use these tools to convince people in earshot that they will suffer if they commit any of the acts that go against the Christian Nationalist beliefs.
Christian Nationalists want to have America adhere to their beliefs because they feel that this is a Christian country and that is the way it is meant to be. While they feel that they should be able to dictate the laws and decided what is and is not allowed, they, "...want both a Christian America and democratic life (as they understand it), in which there is a measure of religious
freedom" (Ramet 2005). It seems quite contradictory, they want to rule the roost, but at the same time, have some sort of freedom in terms of belief. They are well-versed in the political sphere, and if they keep striving, probably would not have much of a problem getting their members in positions of power in American courts. The big problem here is where does it end. If they do get into the courtrooms and are able to overturn certain rights that so many people fought so hard for, what good is that really going to do. In my opinion, it will only cause more harm than good. No one will ever fully agree on anything, there will always be opposiong beliefs and opinions and it is the way that people handle that and deal with the differences that is really important.



Ramet, Sabrina. "Fighting for the Chrisitian Nation" : The Christian Right and American
Politics". Journal of Human Rights 4.2 (2005): 431-42. Academic Search Premier. Web.
09 November 2009.

Sonia Johnson

Sonia Johnson's book, From Housewife to Heretic, depicts her early life as a Mormon, to the trial in which she was excommunicated, and to her life after her excommunication. In the small excerpt provided by Mathisen, Johnson points out the unfair way in which she is treated during her trial but what the small excerpt does not show is the way Johnson felt about how women were treated in the Mormon faith and also in society. It was not until Johnson began to attended college that she looked back at her childhood and saw all the unfair treatment that women had in the Mormon faith. Her strong devotion to the cause of equal rights comes from her need to breakaway from religious and cultural bonds that enslaved her into a subservient life.

In another book by Johnson, Going Out of Our Minds: The Metaphysics of Liberation, she goes more in depth with her feelings about the ERA and the treatment she was receiving from the people that she once prayed with and looked to for guidance. She describes how and why the Mormon people were so upset with her activities in the ERA. Johnson was fighting for Equal Rights with other Mormon women and they called themselves "Mormons for ERA". The Mormons Johnson was affiliated with accused her of dragging their religion into politics which they believed was unholy and for that reason they felt she needed to stop. But what the Mormon church failed to see was that they were already part of the ERA movement because they were opposing it. After her excommunication Johnson describes how for the first time she felt spiritual freedom. Not only did Johnson make visible the unfair treatment and male hierarchies of the Mormon church she also pointed out the patriarchies in other religious, specifically Catholicism and Judaism (Johnson). Johnson was latter label as a heretic by the Mormon church because of her beliefs that went against everything they had taught her and fellow believers.

Johnson participated and lead movements that fought for women's right. She was trying to reinvent that role given to women through the patriarchs set up by society. One controversial topic that Johnson had strong beliefs for was abortion. In the beginning of her battles with equal rights and women's rights Johnson found herself fighting religious groups and patriarchies but by the time of Roe vs. Wade Johnson found herself fighting political patriarchs as well. Which leads to the topic of religion in politics and how gender plays into the heiraches. Johnson was fighting these battles during the 70's when women were not allowed the same rights as men but she also makes it clear how religion has had an affect on politcal outcomes.

Works Cited

Mathisen, Robert R. Critical Issues in American Religious History. Waco, Texas. Baylor University Press. 2006.

Johnson, Sonia. From Housewife to Heretic. Garden City, New York. Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1981.

Johnson, Sonia. Going out of our Minds: The Metaphysics of Liberation. Freedom, California. The Crossing Press. 1987.

Kingdom Still Coming

At the end of chapter six of Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming, a question formed concerning when the book was written. Much of this chapter focuses on Christian Nationalists’ attempts to diminish the power of one of the most essential branches of our government: the Judicial. According to Goldberg, the book took shape in 2004 and came out in 2006 (michellegoldberg.net). The events that have taken place since then have drastically changed the milieu of politics in America. Perhaps this may be demonstrating a futility in creating the change that once seemed so possible for the movement. Or maybe this is just an ebb in a cycle that will demonstrate this group to be even stronger in the future and more pervasive than ever thought.

Goldberg used the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 as an example of a piece of legislation that, if enacted, would spell the downfall of the judicial system. However, the act has essentially disappeared although it may return in some way years down the road. There is no way a bill such as this would ever pass in our current congress after Demacrats regained control in 2006 and expanded that control significantly in 2008. With the election of Barack Obama in that same year, moderate evangelicals have demonstrated that Republicans do not hold such a firm grasp on their loyalty. However, with control of congress in democratic hands, the movement is even more reliant on Republicans and vice versa. Golderg herself quoted Sydney Blumenthal of The Guardian in an article for the Huffington Post, “Republicans can only hold their base by asserting their conservatism, which alienates the rest of the country. More than ever, the Republicans are dependent upon white evangelical voters,” The influence Christian Nationalism has on the United States at this time is at the least waning since these events have taken place.

Nevertheless, Christian Nationalism is far from being uprooted. It has crawled its way through the Clinton administration, while untiringly attacking it. Now, with Obama in office, these attacks have renewed and will not yield through the course of the next few years. Additionally, any changes that conservatives may make will come at the state level as we have seen in the election of two Republican governors last week. This is more than likely just another beginning. During the Bush years, seeds were planted that will protect a future through not only judicial appointments but faith-based initiatives and more. It is important to remember that this is a political more than religious movement, and yet it is becoming a quasi-hidden social movement as well. Goldberg relates that, through home-schooling, “they’re working to groom a new generation of legal activists from childhood” (Goldberg 172). Children are being indoctrinated by a revisionist history of our country and learning the skills they will need in order to make great change. There seems to be no other word for it; insidious is what this plan is in its efforts to erode at our democracy.

With the Constitution Restoration Act pretty much gone, the tide shifting to a democratically controlled congress, and the election of Barack Obama, it would seem to some that the Christian Nationalist movement has been given a virtual death blow in terms of making any major change to judicial powers. The reality is that this stealthy political movement is prepared for a long fight and will continue to make lasting impacts upon our country for a very long time through its machinations to change what is at the core or our nation.

Resources:


Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdon Coming. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006. Print.

Bill Berkowitz. “Even After an Obama Victory Reports of the Death of the Religious Right are Greatly Exaggerated | Religious Right | ReligionDispatches.” Web. 10 Nov 2009.

“Michelle Goldberg: What, Me Worry? The Christian Right and "Theocracy Hype".” Huffington Post. Web. 10 Nov 2009.

“The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg.” The Humanist. September/October 2007. Web. 10 Nov 2009.

Civil Religion Revisited

In reading chapter 6 of Goldberg, it is clear that the Christian Nationalist movement directly influences the politics in this country. We are able to see that the separation of church and state are not as separate as we may have thought. When George Bush was in office, he was heavily involved with the Christian Nationalist movement. He supported and funded programs that were run by the Christian Nationalists, and he elected judges who supported his cause in a way that has never been done before. According to Goldberg, “He [Bush] changed the judicial vetting procedure and put forward a slate of jurists far more radically partisan than any in American history.”

The Christian Nationalists are trying to turn this country into a Christian nation. They feel that since the founding fathers were Christian and the basic foundation of this country was made on Christian beliefs, that the country should be a Christian Nationalist country. They feel as if, “Any ruling that contradicts their theology as de facto unconstitutional, and its enforcement tyrannical.” (Goldberg, 155) They feel as if they should have the right into everyone's private lives so that they can prevent premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, and anything else they deem is a sin.

The Christian Nationalists want to be able to control what is legal and illegal based on their beliefs, which would go against what this country believes in, freedom. When we are forced to abide by a certain religions beliefs, and laws are created based on a faith state, then those who do not believe in that religion are being forced to act against their will. This is why there is such a controversy over the role the Christian Nationalists play in the judicial system. They believe that the country going the way it is will break down old theological battle lines, leading to the establishment of a new theological consensus in the church. (Lovelace, 13) This is something they want to prevent at all costs. This is exactly why Thomas Jefferson supported the separation of church and state. He felt that if the church was involved with state, then people are not free to believe, and if the state is involved with the church, then the religion changes. Therefore, the separation of the two is a healthy way of dealing with each other.

When talking about the Christian Nationalists, we can look back at Bellah and remember his ideas of American civil religion. This is how the Christian Nationalists give themselves an identity. What they need to realize is the difference between the Christian God, and the God that is referred to in all of the founding documents. The Christian God represents a deep spiritual feeling of love and salvation, while the civil religion God is more interested in establishing laws, order, and the rights of man. If they could make this distinction, maybe there would be less disputes between the Christian Nationalists and the judicial system.


Works Cited:
Bellah, Robert N. "Civil Religion in America." Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 96.1 (1967): 1-21. Print.

Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdon Coming. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2006. Print.

Lovelace, Richard F. "Homosexuality and the Church." Critical Issues in American Religious History. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2006. 746. Print.

Christian Nationalists in Power

Christian nationalists believe that it is the will of God to create a country that is strictly run by their own Christian beliefs and values and Goldberg states that the only thing in the way of this happening is by destroying the courts which is their main obstacle. Christian nationalists already believe that America is a Christian based nation and because of this they feel the need to get rid of secular values and laws that clash with their own religious values and beliefs. The only way for them to achieve this is to destroy or take over the power of the courts (Goldberg, 155). By destroying the current judiciary powers and using their organized religious groups and leaders to take over, Christian nationalists would most likely create new laws that supported their religious values and destroy ones that contradicted it. With this being said we can see that many of our current rights could very well be destroyed because of the fact that it goes against someone else’s religious beliefs. With their strong objections to homosexuality, “unholy sex,” abortions and birth control, we see only a portion of what they want to change. It is not just the act of “unholy sex” or sex out of marriage that they are wanting to criminalize, but the act of monitoring these things to be sure that they don’t happen even within one’s own home would be taking away people’s right to privacy. Goldberg states that Rick Santorum shared his beliefs that there is no right to privacy because “…it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families" (157). Again, this is an example of how the Christian nationalist would push their extreme values on the rest of the country. In a reader called, Culture, Society, and Sexuality, there is a chapter by Gayle S. Rubin about some of the politics of sexuality. Rubin stated that in the 1940s through the early 60’s “erotic communities” and homosexuals were persecuted due to their activities and lifestyles that went against those of the government at that time (145). “Congressional investigations, executive orders and sensational exposes in the media aimed to root out homosexuals employed by the government. (Rubin, 145). Rubin even stated that the FBI became involved until the 1970s through “systematic surveillance and harassment of homosexuals…” (145). This is just an example of how Christian nationalists would attempt to go about carrying out their religious laws that they so strongly believe in. Again, even if one is heterosexual, this would not mean that they are safe from having their privacy destroyed. Homosexuality is just one of the many things that Christian nationalists would want to destroy. Because they want to be sure that no acts of “unholy” sex would occur they would intrude into people’s privacy. Furthermore, to help them end “unholy” sex they would probably attempt to destroy any influence of sex or anything related to values that they think are sinful. If there is a host of a TV show who was a homosexual does this mean they would take his/her show off the air? If people were fired once before for simply being homosexual then this situation would be no different. It is one thing to use your remote to change a channel when you don’t like what is on but it is completely different to destroy it because it goes against someone’s religious views. If Christian nationalists have issues with people who do not share the same values of sexuality how then will they act towards someone with a completely different religion? If they plan to push their values of a “correct” or “holy” sexuality on people then why would they hesitate to push the religion that influences this idea on the people as well. With so many different religions in America it’s obvious that this would be a problem. We all have a choice because of our rights to freedom and by ever letting Christian nationalists break and take over the judiciary powers we would jeopardize these rights.

References:
Edited by: Richard Guy Parker, Peter Aggleton. Rubin, Gayle S. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." Culture, society and sexuality: a reader. Edition 2 1999: 144-154

Goldberg, Michelle.Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism.New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Emergency Contraceptive

The lawsuits between, women being refused their prescription for emergency contraceptive, and the pharmacists refusing to fill their prescriptions, are based on individual morals supported by their religion. When a person’s religious Truth is involved, to the individual it is a clear cut issue, I am absolutely right while you are wrong (Jarosch, 2009).

This debate first saw light in April 2005, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich created a law which required dispense of emergency contraceptive to be done “without delay,” like all other prescriptions. The first case on this issue was in January 2006, when four pharmacists in Illinois refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptive because of their religious beliefs on this issue. As a result the pharmacists were put on unpaid leave. When the prescription was refused to be filled, the pharmacists were going against the law that was created in 2005. In return, the pharmacists filed a suit in opposition to the law that was created in 2005, saying that the law violated their constitutional rights. Pharmacists should be able to maintain their religious autonomy, and the state should not interfere.

The lawsuit against the 2005 Illinois rule created a compromise between pharmacists, the state, and pharmacies. The pharmacists want religious autonomy, and women need insurance that they have the right to emergency contraceptive without the pharmacist imposing their personal religious belief. This lawsuit created a shift, the duty to fill prescriptions was no longer the job of individual pharmacists, now it is the job of the pharmacy. Non-pharmacists can give emergency contraceptive with the approval of offsite pharmacists. Or individual pharmacists can decline the prescription as long as they return the prescription to the individual.

Not all states have addressed the issue of emergency contraceptives. As of 2009, only thirteen states have directed attention on this issue either through legislature or executive action. Four states have refusal laws, allowing pharmacists the right to refuse. Five states have broader refusal laws allowing several health care providers a right to refuse various services such as emergency contraceptives. In all of the states that allow the pharmacist the choice, they must return the prescription to the individual if they refuse to fill it. Four states protect the access of emergency contraceptives, saying if the medicine is in the back, and it is a valid prescription, then pharmacists must fill the prescription.

There are not many cases seen for women filing claims because women must have damages as a result of the pharmacist not filling the prescription, meaning the woman must become pregnant. When a woman was raped and then refused her prescription for emergency contraceptive she did not win her lawsuit because she did not become pregnant. Because of the unclear and conflicting rules and statutes, individual cases have unpredictable results.

In the last four years, thirteen states have created laws around woman’s right to emergency contraceptive verses pharmacist’s right to decline this medicine. This issue is a result of individual morals/beliefs. Pharmacists are concerned with the state taking away their religious independence while the other side of the argument does not want the imposing of the pharmacist personal religious beliefs on woman.

Goldberg, Michelle. The Christian Rise of Nationalism: Kingdom Coming. New York. Norton Paperback, 2007. P.129-133.

Jarosch, Jeffrey Paul "FINDING SPACE FOR OPPOSING CONSCIENCES: REHABILITATING THE MORAL MARKETPLACE FOR THE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION DEBATE." Northwestern University Law Review 103.3 (2009): 1461-1493.

The Salvation Army

When you hear the word Salvation Army many may think of the holidays when people stand outside of stores and ring their bells with red collection bins and ask for donations but he Salvation Army was founded in London in 1985 and was originally called the East London Christian Mission. The Salvation Army’s mission statement states this “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.” (Salvation Army).With this being said the United States has the constitution which is our set of rules to follow as Americans but the rule of separation between church and state has not been followed in the faith-based organization of the Salvation Army.

When former President Bush took office one of the first things he did was make sure that he and his supporters gave the many different faith-based organizations money. Goldberg had spoken with a former employee of the Salvation Army and they had spoken on a event that had take place in the organization. After the event had taken place Lown and seventeen other employees had filed a lawsuit against the Salvation Army suing them for discrimination. As written to the Los Angeles Times “The department’s position in this case is that religious groups should be able to hire and fire people based on their religious views, even when administering publicity funded programs.” (129, Goldberg) This statement was a cornerstone of former Presidents Bush’s faith-based initiative. This quote makes it seem like the Salvation Army had been given approval by Bush’s administration to discriminate as long as they supported Bush’s agenda. It was later discovered that Bush’s administration had been having secret conversations with the Salvation Army.

“Three years ago, the Salvation Army publication The War Cry ran a strident attack on church-state separation. The article, written by Sam Silligato, recycled the Religious Right's bogus history, contending that the United States was meant to be an officially "Christian nation."”(R.B.). At the New York location in Spring 2003 they had called in Colonel Paul Kelly in to heighten the agency’s evangelical aspect. Once Kelly had arrived many things had started too changed. People were being fired and then the employees that were left were asked to fill out a form listing their religious beliefs and the churches that they had attended in the past ten years and to give the Salvation Army permission to contact the church and ask questions about their characteristics as people. Many refused and this is where the lawsuit came up and the Salvation Army had said that they will guarantee “equal employment” without discrimination. With this many employees became worried about how the new emphasis on evangelism would affect the clients on the Salvation Army.

In conclusion the White house in 2003 had issued a paper explaining why they believed government-funded religious charities should be allowed to discriminate. The paper was titled “Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith Based Organizations: Why Religious Hiring Rights Must Be Protected.” (132-133, Goldberg). Overall I fell that Faith Based organizations should not have the right to decide who and who not to hire basing it on their religious background.

Goldberg, Michelle. The Christian Rise of Nationalism: Kingdom Coming. New York. Norton Paperback, 2007. P.129-133.

"Mission Statement". Salvation Army. November 2009

R.B. "THE SALVATION ARMY: DECLARING WAR ON CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION? (Cover story)." Church & State 54.8 (2001): 7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.

Crossing the Line Between Church and State

The separation of church and state has been a prominent fixture in American democracy since Thomas Jefferson pushed for the division. Yet since George W. Bush took office the line between the two has been blurred. One of the first major moves Bush did once entering office was to create the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He then moved to construct similar offices in other major government departments, clearly crossing the line and bring the state into religion. This move helped him win the religious right vote. As a result in the recent 2009 election the two candidates joined in the support of government funding for faith-based organizations.
The main purpose of faith-based organizations is to help people and rid society of its social ills. On the outside this seems like a good idea, but the reality is that along with providing these services to the needy they also have a religious agenda. Served along side their meal programs for the needy is a hearty helping of Christianity. Michelle Goldberg put it best when she wrote,” …we’re becoming a country in which people literally have to pray for public help”.
The majority of the funds allotted for this program are being snatched up by Christian organizations. In a 2003 study by the Associated Press found that only 56 grantees were not Christian groups (Goldberg 121). This worked out well for Bush, since he was elected on the strength of the Christian Nationalist. This was the same conclusion John Dilulio, the first head of the faith-based office came to, “…the program was meant to help the Bush base, not the poor” (Goldberg 121). By keeping them happy he ensured himself that Christian Nationals would continue to support him and vote for him a second time.
This Christian support is what drove presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain to pledge to continue the program if they were elected. Both candidates were vying for the Christian vote and believed supporting this issue would give it to them. Obama was the first to raise the issue in a speech on July 1, 2008. He wanted to continue with the program but under a new name, the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He also wanted to eliminate the use of unfair hiring practices that were allowed by Bush. Under Bush organizations could restrict who they hired based on their religion. McCain on the other hand agreed with Bush and wanted to keep the hiring practices as they were. Christian Nationalist who supported Bush bashed Obama for his views, but in the end he won the election.
Religion is an extremely personal matter. One in which the government has no right to enter. Yet they feel the need to fund faith-based programs not because it is the right thing to do but because it is a way of getting elected. The line between church and state has not completely been erased but it has been crossed and because candidates need church support to be elected it will probably never be the same.

References
Boston, R. (2008). 'Faith-based' based flare up: government aid to social service ministries becomes hot topic in presidential campaign. Church & State, 61(8), 172-174. http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org

Conservative Christians Attributions to both God and Satan

Religious people, particularly conservative Christians, go about their daily lives with the belief that god is constantly working in the world. When good things happen, it is the work of god; when an individual is saved from a life of sin, it is the work of god. However when so called “evil” has been done upon these individuals or they themselves have committed misconduct, it tends to be attributed to the works of Satan. Throughout our class discussions what Satan means to a conservative Christian and how this figure is utilized has not been addressed in depth. In her book, Goldberg (2007) discusses the case of Tonja Myles a former drug addict who prostituted herself to support her habit until she was saved by the word of god. After overcoming her addiction she attributed her previous lifestyle to the works of Satan by describing herself as a former Satan worshipper. Why is it that conservative Christians need to attribute negative events or their own negative behavior to the work of Satan or demons?
A more commonly known answer would be that Satan is the fallen angel so therefore anything perceived as evil in the world must be attributed to the work of Satan. However, in reference to Eliade’s theory, a religious person, in this case a conservative Christian, cannot see space as homogeneous, nor can he or she attribute events in the world to cause and effect response or simple chance. Lupfer, Paola, Brock, and Clement (1994) conducted a study to investigate secular versus religious attributions to events. Researchers distributed a variety of vignettes to 202 participants all of whom differed in their adherents. Researchers asked participants to provide an explanation for the characters behavior or the outcome of the vignette. Researchers found that religious attributions, for example vignettes with positive outcomes being attributed to god and vignettes with negative outcomes being attributed to Satan, were most common among participants who adhered to conservative Christianity. Religious attributions were especially prevalent among conservative Christians when the actions in the vignettes were linked to religious values (Lupfer et al, 1994). In a religious persons world, when a man has fallen off the path of righteousness he is being influenced by Satan or inner demons, but can be saved by being reborn.
Aside from the bible professing acts such as homosexuality a sin, belief in an active Satan serves to justify attitudes of intolerance. In another study, Wilson and Huff (2001) conducted a correlational analysis of Christian’s belief in an active Satan in relation to their attitudes towards homosexuals and ethnic minorities. Researchers had 200 participants complete a prejudice scale along with an attitude towards homosexuals scale and a belief in an active Satan scale. Researchers observed that an active belief in Satan was directly related to intolerance towards homosexuals and ethnic minorities. Conservative Christians belief in an active Satan has fostered hatred towards things that are considered to be unclean such as homosexuality, drugs, and alcoholbecause of the belief that Satan is at work.
How does this attribution to Satan affect religion in American politics? As discussed by Goldberg, conservative Christian politicians believe that the separation between church and state is the work of Satan. The belief in an active Satan with regards to issues such as abortion, prostitution, premarital sex, and homosexuality is a working force that is helping conservative Christians in the political sphere get closer to their goal of saving the worlds sinners. Conservative Christians belief that they are not only battling society’s sinners but the works of Satan is a strong driving force to create religious reform in the political sphere.
References
Wilson, K., & Huff, J. (2001). Scaling Satan. Journal of Psychology, 135(3), 292. Retrieved
November 4, 2009 from Religion and Philosophy Collection database.
Lupfer, M., de Paola, S., Brock, K., & Clement, L. (1994). Making Secular and Religious
Attributions: The Availability Hypothesis Revisited. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 33(2), 162. Retrieved November 4, 2009 from Religion and Philosophy
Collection database.

Compassionate Conservatism

Picture our country as a club. In this club we have a set of rules that are to be followed by all members within it i.e. the Constitution. Within our set of rules it has been said that there should be a separation between church and state. This doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be religion within the country. This just means that religion shouldn’t be controlled by the government or vice versa, they should remain separate. So, when the elected leader of the country begins funneling taxpayer dollars to clearly religious, or more specifically Christian social services in the name of a “faith-based” initiative what is to be said about the validity of our set of rules?
Heavily influenced by Christian nationalist Marvin Olasky, a strong supporter of scrapping the current welfare system and replacing it with private religious charity, former president Bush made his “compassionate conservatism” policy the center piece of his campaign. He knew that “Accepting Jesus had helped him quit drinking, and that experience seemed to be all the evidence Bush need that Olasky’s theories would work for the entire nation.”(Goldberg, p.113)
Bush and his supporters of the this initiative had to be very careful with their wording to the public using terms such as “faith-based” which appears pluralistic up front yet largely means “Christian-based”. While it is true that small grants where given to non-Christian organizations, they were heavily outweighed by those being given to Christian ones whose primary goal was conversion. What this can lead to is a discriminatory situation in which these social services being backed by the federal government only hire “like-minded” employees to support their mission. “Bush has insisted that religious groups that sponsor Head Start programs should have the right to restrict hiring to church members” (Boston, p. 9) This excerpt from Tom Boston’s article titled “Bush’s Faith Based Revival” is just one example of how this “faith-based” initiative could get out of hand. When social services that are being funded by the federal government are encouraged to discriminate, it throws up a major red flag.
While Bush is no longer the president of the United States, the issue is still quite troublesome. It seems to be a direct violation of the separation of church and state that the Constitution laid the framework for. Yet, with a conservative Christian behind the wheel a lot of these violations were encouraged and promoted. We can only hope that for the sake of the country that these violations do not grow stronger.

Boston, Tom. "Bush's Faith Based Revival." Church & State 57.3 (2004): 7-13. Web. 3 Nov 2009. .

If the Bible is good enough for the church it is good enough for the School and State- (CSC) Goldberg

Every student attending a public school with in this nation are taught the concept of Evolution. Although many of their families have the option of taking their child to church in order for them to obtain the knowledge of intelligent design, what if their family is not one that chooses to attend church on a regular basis leaving the child to only know of evolution? The question is whether or not every developing mind should only be allowed the option to seek other ideas beyond evolution outside of the public education system or should both concepts be taught within the system?
Stated on the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) website, “if the Bible is good enough for the church, it is good enough for the school and state,” Rather than value of the bible being at stake, it is the imposition of either concepts on a child, who may have the option of attending a church, but its forced to attend school. In a perfect world, all theories would be taught as well as all theories being accepted, but we live in a society where religion is not forced upon anyone. As evolution is seen as a scientific method and must be known prior to achieving many scientific professions our children should be subjected to learn the concepts of this theory (Hewlett, 2006). Sadly, the Evangelical way of life can only be obtained by one who is anti-science, or anti-Darwinism.
“Evolution in Our Schools: What shall we teach?” explores both sides of teaching only evolution in schools, and the idea of teaching both as it can only expand the mind rather than keeping it narrow. Hewlett and Peters claim the position of being Christian Evangelicals who spread the lords word, but ones who have acknowledged the teachings of evolution to their children as it will only ensure their future. As they are very loyal to their beliefs they have not taken belief of evolution, but have taken notice to the theory as it is a part of society and without knowing it can only hold them back.
Too many Conservative Evangelicals, Hewlett and Peters would not be Christian due to their opinion on the matter, but it does raise the question of what would the public education system be like if both scientific and religious theories were to be taught? In many aspects it has been shown that the idea of both or none at all being taught will never exist as we are a society of freedom, the freedom to practice else where just as long as it is not being asked for within an institution that is being funded by tax’s payers money.

Resources

Hewlett, Martinez, and Ted Peters "Evolution in Our Schools: What Should We Teach?." Dialog: A Journal of Theology 45.1 (2006): 106-109. Religion and Philosophy Collection. EBSCO. Web. 3 Nov. 2009.

Goldber, Michelle. The Christian Rise of Nationalism: Kingdom Coming. New York. Norton Paperback, 2007. pg84.

Opposing the Abstinence Only Fight

“I’m not going to give them a condom… No. Never. Cause they’re going to come back to me, and they’re going to say it didn’t work” stated Leslee Unruh in response to a question regarding the issue of safe sex education in America. As part of the Christian Nationalist, Unruh is among a large community of people that believe in reestablishing the Christian way in America. Part of their effort has been to rid American schools and public of safe sex education, in which people are informed of various contraceptives available to promote safe sex practices. In response the people of the Christian Nation believe that Abstinence-only programs are necessary if morality is to be restored in America. As this group of people establish Abstinence only programs they are using biased information and are endangering those they reach out too.
Abstinence-only programs focus on the idea of “no sex before marriage”, but do not offer any other options. As a result many adolescents that go through these programs are left unknowledgeable. It may delay the action, but based on research by Bearman and Bruckner, “ [teens] are more likely to have oral or anal sex, and that when they do lose their virginity, they’re less likely to use condoms and to seek treatment if they contract STD’s” (137 Goldberg). Not only does abstinence only programs offer little information regarding protecting one’s self it is not representative of the majority of Americans’ needs and wants. According to a “2004 report on "Public Support for Comprehensive Sexuality Education" indicates that 93 percent of parents of junior high school students and 91 percent of parents of high school students believe it is very or somewhat important to have sex education as part of the school curriculum” (Rose).
While abstinence-only programs continue to be a part of American society they continue to misinform people regarding the benefits of sex education. As stated in Kingdom Coming, by Goldberg many of the organizations associated with pro-abstinence education use manipulative tactics. For example, many “Crisis pregnancy centers, or CPC’s, have long, well-documented records of lying to women about their sexual health” (139). In many cases these organizations have deceived women into believing they were health clinics even though the people inside are not medical professionals, but anti-abortion activists (139).
Another problem with these organizations is that they use fear to convince adolescents to not have sex till marriage. In one program the video “No Second Chance” is shown in which a discussion regarding sex outside of marriage is shown while images of men dying from AIDS are also shown (Rose). Other programs use the method of fear as well, in a program by Leslee Unruh rubber viper snakes are used to teach the dangers of condoms.
The issue with these programs is not only that they are miss-informative and deceiving, but that they have received a great amount of support from the American government. According to a 2005 study, “Under the Bush administration, abstinence-only programs have expanded rapidly. While $170 million in federal funds have been slated for FY 2005, President Bush has allocated an additional $39 million for abstinence-until-married education programs, bringing the total request for FY 2006 to $205.5 million. This represents a 50 percent increase in funding since 2004 (Rose). As stated by Goldberg, “almost one billion dollars of government funds had been spent on chastity programs by the end of Bush’s first term” (137).
I do not believe the Christian Nation will ever fully succeed in removing sex education from American public, but they will continue to do whatever they see fit to try to. As we can see this group of people is determined to fulfill their belief in the God given right to “restore” America to the Christian way.

Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming. New York: Norton & Co, Inc., 2007.

Rose, Susan. "Going Too Far? Sex, Sin and Social Policy." Volume 84, Number 2, December 2005, 84.2 (2005): 1207-1232.

Against Abstinence-only Education

Abstinence-only education programs have driven various debates; the methods' effectiveness dictates whether to continue or to abolish them. Christian Nationalists have taken the role to “regain” secularized America back to the Christian nation it “once” was and to “reestablished” the Christian morals and conducts of the American people through various programs like these. The movement has been bombarded with problems because time and time again has shown that these certain strict and specific programs do not necessarily work.
From 2001 to 2009, the programs have “received almost $1.3 billion in federal funding, according to the Office of Management and Budget” (Beil). It would seem that with the financial capacity that these various programs would be effective, but opponents of abstinence-only education methods, which emphasize sex-after-marriage, claim that even with federal funding, there were no desired effects. One program called The Virginity Rules, sponsored by the East Texas Abstinence Program, lost federal funding for it failed to bring about the sought after results of lowering teen births; Texas, which drew the biggest share of abstinence funds in 2000, recorded 62 teen births per 1,000 population compared to the national rate of 40 per 1,000. An 8-million study regarding the efficiency of abstinence-only education showed that there was no difference in age of first sexual intercourse. Another claimed that only 3 abstinence-only programs produced effects, which were weak (Beil). Of course, when students are asked about their opinions on the program‘s success, they would claim that these programs do not work. Bristol Palin claims that, and she should know.
The programs' limitations and strict curriculum do not necessarily reach out to the students. I have suspected that these programs do not even acknowledge students’ inputs, and I have observed that both sex-education classes and abstinence-only classes emphasize greatly on scare tactics; these classes should also emphasize “negotiation skills in sexual relationships and communication … Interventions to help adolescents learn about healthy sexual relationships need to be designed” (DiCenso).
Given that abstinence-only education exclude the importance of condoms and other contraceptives, young people are not able to learn critical, life-saving information. Another reason for the opposition whould be the programs’ violation of human rights and ethical principles. Teachers and health educators, then, are withholding scientific knowledge. Access to accurate health information as a basic human right has been addressed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and in the program at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Kantor). Even critics would claim that the program is not helping AIDS treatment programs, which are targeting “populations at greatest risk” (Church and State, para 7). Clearly, denying students vital health information clearly has unfavorable effects.



Sources:
Beil, Laura. "Just Saying No To Abstinence Ed." BMJ. 324.1426 (2002)." Newsweek. 152.17 (2008): Academic Search Premier

Kantor, Leslie. "Abstinence-only Education Violating Students' Rights to Health Information." Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 35.3 (2008): Academic Search Premier

"'Abstinence-only' Rule Hurts Fight Against AIDS, Research Report Asserts." Church & State May 2007: 114-115.

DiCenso, Alba. "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials ." BMJ. 324.1426 (2002): Academic Search Premier

Abstinence is the Only Way

“My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public schools’ job should not be to keep teens from having sex. Our job should be to tell kids the truth!” (Goldberg 135) This is according to Pam Stenzel, an advocate of abstinence only education.

Abstinence. It is the only way to be free of sexual sin and to maintain a life of purity. It is the truth; it is not a lie. It is not the enemy, but teaching safe sex is. According to Goldberg, the research on abstinence programs and curricula is that it does not do much to stop teens from having sex (137), and according to DeJoy and Perrin, no one has demonstrated that they work (449). In essence, these abstinence only programs seem to cause more problems than they solve and are not the truth, as Stenzel seems to believe.

The first of many problems amongst this line of thinking seems to be the development of these deceptive crisis pregnancy centers, or CPC’s. These are places that mimic women’s health clinics, and yet, when a woman goes inside, they are given abstinence only or anti-abortion speeches, taught nothing about the proper use of contraception, and are instead “encouraged to stop having sex and to embrace ‘second virginity’.” (Goldberg 140) Often times, women who are already having sex are not going to stop, thus, what is the use of pressing one group’s principles on that individual?

Another problem that comes from this is the fact that abstinence only curricula and programs only teach the ineffectiveness of using contraceptives, because the idea is to deter people from having sex at all. Yet, this method is a “disservice to teens who are already sexually active, homosexual teens who are not legally permitted to marry same-sex partners in most states, and young adults who will become sexually active before marriage” (DeJoy 450) because those who choose to have sex are going to have it anyways. This becomes the problem of a person not having proper education about sex, which then leads them to be unlearned about easily preventable things like sexually transmitted diseases or pregnancies.

These “problems” could be easily solved if sexual education were taught in a more proper manner. Yes, teach abstinence as the safest way to prevent pregnancy and disease, but also teach the proper use of contraceptives for those who are either already having sex or are going to make that choice to do so before they are married. Teaching abstinence only curricula, along with the ineffectiveness of contraceptives, is only going to cause more problems for the future.


Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming. New York: Norton & Co, Inc., 2007.

DeJoy, Sharon Bernecki, and Perrin, Karen. “Abstinence-Only Education: How We Got Here and Where We're Going”. Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 24 (2003). Palgrave Macmillan Journals. pp. 445-459