public schools

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: CNN offers an old opposition-research file on Speaker Mike 'theocrat' Johnson

Before we return to the never-ending saga of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and his efforts to create a totalitarian theocracy that destroys democracy in America, let’s pause for a Journalism 101 case study.

Don’t worry, this is directly related to this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

Now, gentle readers, are any of you old enough to remember Marabel Morgan, the evangelical superstar who wrote “The Total Woman,” which sold something like 10 million copies? Morgan was an anti-feminist crusader clothed in pink (as opposed to something else) who had a knack for infuriating blue-zipcode elites. Here is a quick flashback, via the Faith Profiles website:

An editor at Time magazine once confided in Marabel Morgan that he came away from a cocktail party with high-heel marks all over his chest at the mere mention of her name.

And what heinous crime did Morgan commit that could provoke such a sharp reaction? Morgan wrote a book in the early 1970s that sold more than 5 million copies about how she salvaged her marriage. The widespread belief was that she proposed that women rekindle their marriages by such innovations as greeting their husbands at the door dressed in Saran Wrap or having sex under the dining room table.

Whee!

During my early 1980s religion-beat work at The Charlotte News, I ventured out to a suburban megachurch where Morgan spoke to several thousand fans. I left that meeting absolutely furious, my mind packed with outrageous punchline quotes from her (I had to admit entertaining) speech.

Driving back to the newsroom on deadline, I started figuring out what would be in the crucial first two or three paragraphs of the story. Then I realized that, if I followed my own prejudices, I was going to frontload this story with stuff that would fire up my editors and others who detested Morgan and her tribe.

Thus, I decided to attempt a story that opened with material that included (a) what Morgan said that I knew would appeal to her critics and (b) what she said that drew cheers and applause from her supporters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

In terms of Islamic doctrine, alcohol is "haram," or forbidden, and the Quran is blunt: "O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork."

But it isn't hard to find Muslims that never boarded that bandwagon.

"There are Muslims who drink and get drunk. That's a fact, but that doesn't mean they can change what Islam teaches," said Yasir Qadhi, dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, near Dallas. "That's a sin. We all sin. But we cannot change our faith to fit the new norms in society."

Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be controversial for Islamic leaders to affirm that their faith teaches absolute, unchanging truths about moral issues -- including subjects linked to sexuality, marriage and family life.

But Muslims in America never expected to be called "ignorant and intolerant" because they want public-school leaders to allow children to opt out of academic work that clashes with their faith. But that's what is happening in Montgomery County, Maryland, and a few other parts of the U.S. and Canada, where Muslim parents have been accused of cooperating with the cultural right, said Qadhi.

"That is so painful. … Truth is, we are not aligning with the political left or right," he added. "You cannot put Islam into a two-party world, where you have to choose the Democrats or the Republicans and that is that."

On the legal front, a Maryland district court recently ruled that parents do not have "a fundamental right" to avoid school activities that challenge their faith. The legal team for a coalition of Muslims, Jews, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals and others quickly asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the Mahmoud v. McKnight decision.

At the same time, Muslim leaders are debating a May 23 statement -- "Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam" -- signed by more than 200 Muslim leaders and scholars, representing a variety of Islamic traditions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A journalism question that suggests an answer: 'Who's Afraid of Moms for Liberty?'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A journalism question that suggests an answer: 'Who's Afraid of Moms for Liberty?'

For nearly 20 years now, GetReligion has focused on discussions of religion content in what used to be called “hard news,” as in old-school journalism that attempted to do accurate, fair-minded coverage of public events, debates, trends, etc.

Long ago, I was taught that the more controversial and disputed the topic, the harder journalists should strive for “balance” in terms of content about participants on both sides, or all sides, of the debate.

Honest. People used to believe things like that.

Thus, your GetReligionistas have always tried to separate “hard news” from analysis, commentary and even outright public relations.

This brings me to a fascinating news feature in The Free Press, an important online news source that — from my point of view — grew out of the digital, social-media wars inside The New York Times. Founded by Bari Weiss, an old-school liberal, this new publication covers many controversial topics that have been overlooked, ignored or even cancelled in elite newsrooms.

Is The Free Press a “hard news” publication? It certainly publishes lots of new information, using sources that it quotes on the record. Much of the content is analysis, in the style of The Atlantic and similar publications.

In this case, we are talking about a Robert Pondiscio article with this double-decker headline:

Who’s Afraid of Moms for Liberty?

A growing cadre of angry mothers is taking over school boards and winning influence as GOP kingmakers. Why are they being called a ‘hate group’?

The overture makes it clear that, in this case, The Free Press team is interested in the lives and beliefs of the actual members (think “stakeholders”) of this organization, as opposed to the Republican candidates that court them. Ah, but do these groups overlap?

In a breakout session in a windowless conference room at last weekend’s Moms for Liberty “Joyful Warrior Summit” in Philadelphia, Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party and father of three school-aged daughters, is stiffening spines. Dozens of attendees, mostly women, are nodding and taking notes as Ziegler explains how to work with local news media. 

“Your product is parental rights. Your product is protecting children and eliminating indoctrination and the sexualization of children. You’re the grassroots. You’re on the ground. You’re the moms, the grandparents, the families that are impacted. The stories you tell help set a narrative,” Ziegler coaches them.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Culture Wars 2023 -- As it turns out, traditional Muslims have children too

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: Culture Wars 2023 -- As it turns out, traditional Muslims have children too

Gentle readers, please allow me to start with a short anecdote from about 15 years ago, during the years when I was teaching journalism a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

I attended a typical off-the-record think tank forum in which lawyers from church-state groups were talking about rising tensions in public, taxpayer funded, institutions. At one point, someone asked a question that sounded something like this: What should public-schools leaders do when approached by parents who want opt-out choices for their children when faced with class activities that clash with the teachings of their faith?

The question, of course, was linked to tensions between public-school leaders and evangelicals, and maybe traditional Catholics (“traditional” in the FBI meaning of the word).

One lawyer gave an answer that was way ahead of its time: School administrators should look at these people and do everything they can to pretend that these parents are Muslims. In other words, pretend these parents are part of a minority faith that public officials respect (Muslims), as opposed to part of a larger faith group that administrators distrust, fear and possibly even loathe (evangelicals).

This was one of two Beltway anecdotes I shared during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on a Washington Post story that I have been thinking about during the past week or two. That headline: “Hundreds of Md. parents protest lessons they say offend their faiths.” The Post team appears to have worked hard to keep the main news hook out of that headline and even the lede.

Hundreds of parents demonstrated outside the Montgomery County Board of Education’s meeting … demanding that Maryland’s largest school district allow them to shield their children from books and lessons that contain LGBTQ+ characters.

Still in the dark, right? Keep reading:

The crowd was filled largely with Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox parents, who say the school system is violating their religious rights protected under the First Amendment by not providing an opt-out. Three families have filed a lawsuit against the school system.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
What's missing from that 'conservatives pounce' New York Times sermon on trans fights?

At this point in journalism history, does anyone expect to read New York Times coverage of events and trends on the Religious Right and find a single sentence that presents interesting, provocative information — drawn from interviews with cultural conservatives — that supports that point of view?

OK, #TriggerWarning. This post assumes that, when dealing with hot-button issues, journalists should present information that accurately represents the views of people on both sides of those debates. Here is another way of stating that: Stories about controversial, divisive issues should contain information that make people on each sides uncomfortable.

This brings us to that recent Times piece with this headline: “How a Campaign Against Transgender Rights Mobilized Conservatives.” This is a classic case of the “conservatives pounce” trend in which news stories are defined in terms of conservative responses to a national trend, with next to zero discussions of the origins and nature of the trend itself.

Before we get to the Times sermon on this topic, let’s back up a bit and consider some background information. Here is a byte from a Reuters report:

In 2021, about 42,000 children and teens across the United States received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, nearly triple the number in 2017, according to data Komodo compiled for Reuters. Gender dysphoria is defined as the distress caused by a discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and the one assigned to them at birth.

Overall, the analysis found that at least 121,882 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2017 through 2021.

Here’s another look at the general trend, which includes a few hints at the wider debates:

The number of young people who identify as transgender has nearly doubled in recent years, according to a new report that captures a stark generational shift and emerging societal embrace of a diversity of gender identities.

The analysis, relying on government health surveys conducted from 2017 to 2020, estimated that 1.4 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds and 1.3 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds were transgender, compared with about 0.5 percent of all adults. Those figures illustrated a significant rise since the researchers’ previous report in 2017, though the analyses used different methods.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Parental rights: What's up with the Christian school that baptized kids without permission?

, , , , , , , , ,
Parental rights: What's up with the Christian school that baptized kids without permission?

Readers who have been paying attention to the news know that parental rights is a hot-button topic these days in battles over education, especially with mandatory programs about sexual morality and marriage.

In some cases, public-school leaders have attempted to keep parents in the dark about what their children were reading and studying (and whether parents have supervision options in these matters). The brave new world in these disputes — see this case in Canada — is when school leaders attempt to hide student gender-change decisions from parents.

A reader recently sent me a story from The Hill that opened up a completely different kind of parental-rights case. Here is the headline: “More than 100 students baptized without parents’ permission at North Carolina school.”

The note that came with that URL pointed to an issue near the end of this news report:

Religion Ghosts? I think so. It would have been nice to know why the parents thought the 2nd baptism would undo the first — what sect of Christianity, how that would actually happen.

Let’s get into this. The key, in this story is that we are dealing with a private school, as opposed to a taxpayer-funded public school.

In other words, (a) parents have chosen to send their children to this school, but (b) it’s still crucial to ask if school leaders have kept in-print promises (if any were made) to parents about the nature of religious programs and even rites (sacraments for many, but not all Christians) that might take place in worship.

Thus, here is the overture, and the word “private” is used early on. (Note that I am using The Hill piece, rather than the local paper, for paywall reasons.)

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. (WGHP) — A North Carolina school apologized after baptizing more than 100 children without their parent’s permission, according to the Fayetteville Observer.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Are 'parental rights' references (inside scare quotes) the new 'religious liberty'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are 'parental rights' references (inside scare quotes) the new 'religious liberty'

Here’s a question that I heard recently from a young person down here in Bible Belt country: Why do students at (insert public school) need permission forms from their parents and a doctor to take (insert over-the-counter medication), but the school can assist a student’s efforts to change her gender identity while keeping that a total secret from the parents?

Obviously, something had changed at this school. The crucial question was whether parents had any right to shape or attempt to influence the education — or the moral and physical transformation — of their child in this setting controlled by the state and funded by their tax dollars. Yes, there are religious doctrines involved in many or even most of these cases.

Here’s the question we discussed during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast: Are media reports about this issue starting to turn parental rights into “parental rights,” complete with those prickly “scare quotes” that have turned references to old-school religious liberty issues into so-called “religious liberty” issues. Click here to listen to that podcast.

You can find traces of this conflict if you dig deep enough in a recent New York Times story with this double-decker headline:

The Unlikely Issue Shaping the Virginia Governor’s Race: Schools

Virginia Republicans in a tight governor’s race have been staging “Parents Matter” rallies and tapping into conservative anger over mandates and critical race theory.

The team behind this fascinating Times story didn’t spot the obvious religion ghost in this story. But this story didn’t attempt to turn these standoffs into libertarian dramas in which Trumpian parents are only concerned about COVID-19 conflicts about masks and vaccines (see a related Washington Post story, for example).


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

This story has been hot for about 50 years: Religion do's and don'ts in public schools

, , , , , , , , ,
This story has been hot for about 50 years: Religion do's and don'ts in public schools

THE QUESTION:

What are the do's and don'ts on religion in U.S. public schools?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

As U.S. public schools cope with in-person learning in the midst of another COVID-19 upsurge and argue about "critical race theory," let's remember some good news. Divisive past disputes about how schools handle religion have been substantially settled. Debates continue on certain church-and-state issues but most deal with religious schools and taxpayer funding, not public education.

There's widespread agreement on what federal court rulings require, and on what common sense commends in light of today's pluralistic student bodies. A remarkably broad alliance of groups has joined in a series of policy statements brokered by Senior Fellow Charles Haynes at the First Amendment Center. Click here to read the full texts for yourself or print them out.

The lists of those endorsing the policies vary somewhat but typically they involve all the relevant public school associations alongside major "mainline" and "evangelical" Protestant organizations; Reform, Orthodox and "communal" Jewish groups; religious liberty advocates; and the Council on Islamic Education. Though most lack official backing from the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference, no conflicts with church thinking have been raised.

Especially significant is "A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in Public Schools," issued in 2004. Others are "A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools," "The Equal Access Act: Questions and Answers," "Religion in the Public School Curriculum: Questions and Answers," "Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and Answers," "The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" and "Public Schools and Religious Communities: A First Amendment Guide."

The overriding agreed principle: "The First Amendment prohibits public-school teachers from either inculcating or inhibiting religion. Teachers must remain neutral concerning religion, neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion."

Thus, schools are neither "religion-free zones" nor platforms for worship or evangelism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that everybody is homeschooling, a newsworthy elite assault slams the usual version

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The COVID-19 Era has produced a temporary revolution in American education.

Call it universal homeschooling. Just about everyone from kindergarten through grad school is studying at home. Unlike usual homeschooling, where parents are teachers, Covid coursework is led by schools’ regular teachers online, though parents often manage matters.

Right at this odd moment, normal homeschooling has come under a major attack that provokes vigorous reactions. The coronavirus news hook offers an ideal moment to take a substantial look at the pros and cons of this growing phenomenon that involves some 3% of American children and young people. The story fits the education and religion beats alike, since the majority of homeschool families are religious.

The big new development here is an 80-page anti-homeschool blast in the current issue of the Arizona Law Review by Harvard University Professor Elizabeth Bartholet (click for .pdf), who directs the law school’s Child Advocacy Program. She also makes her case in an interview with Harvard magazine.

The bottom line: Bartholet wants courts and legislatures to ban homeschooling, for the most part, as Germany and Sweden do.

She thinks government should permit exceptions case by case, for instance to accommodate the regimens of talented young athletes or artists. Such permission would be reviewed annually.

Less drastically, Bartholet thinks states are far too lax and should require home schools and public schools to meet similar standards. States would set qualifications for parents to teach (she favors college degrees for high school teachers and high school diplomas for the lower grades), ensure that the curriculum meets minimum state standards, check up via home visits, and require annual standardized tests. If home schools don’t measure up, states would transfer children to public schools.

Policy-makers might see those as common-sense proposals well worth debating. But her advocacy of virtual prohibition signals a strong aversion to the whole idea of homeschooling and a particular hostility toward religious subcultures.


Please respect our Commenting Policy