Letters
January/February 2003
Enabling Laws?
I am very concerned, not only with the way our government is enacting "religious liberty" laws, but also the way that some are proclaiming these as triumphs of religious liberty.
In an article titled "Religious Freedom Act Passed in South Carolina" this statement is made: "Regardless of the amendment, the act which was passed is still an excellent example of what states need to be doing to pass religious freedom acts."
First, the amendment here spoken of is in itself enough to make one cringe in horror that we are proclaiming this as an "excellent example" for religious freedom acts. The amendment restricts the privileges of prisoners. What of those who might be imprisoned for acts related to a conflict between their faith and the requirements of the state? These people will then be without any protection at all . . . and we hail this as an "excellent example" of religious freedom?
Second, the Religious Freedom Act is in itself a law enabling government to persecute. The act states that government cannot interfere in religious practice unless there is a "compelling public interest."
I find such a law as this horrifying. The Bible teaches repeatedly that the majority is almost without exception wrong, and that only a faithful few, a remnant, will be faithful. What will we do when there is a compelling public interest to persecute?
RICK ANGELIN, e-mail
The state RFRAs are the result of a very well-intentioned initiative by a broad coalition of religious groups and civil libertarians to shore up deteriorating application of the First Amendment free exercise clause. Certainly the war on terrorism has shown how easily compelling public interest can be invoked to restrict liberties. Editor.
Respect Not Equality
As Christians we are to respect people as made in the image of God. Within the family we teach our children respect for their "other parent" based on that fundamental truth and that we are told in the Bible to honor our parents. But that does not extend to the embracing of their religion any more than it extends to approving of immorality.
Shall we be tolerant of satanism or White supremacy? Shall we be tolerant of religions that practice human sacrifice or the selling of young women into sexual slavery? Shall we as Christian parents tell our children that their other parent and choice of religion is as valid as ours if these are the tenets of their religion? No serious Christian would do so, intolerant or not.
Each one of us is free to practice our religion within the limits set by the law. This is tolerance. But we are not required to approve of another's religion, even though we allow them that freedom. Tolerance does not mean approval.
There is a higher law than either the popular law of tolerance or the law of this land or any land. If asked by the law to approve of another religion or practice, then as a Christian I have no choice but to obey God. I have a responsibility under God to rear my children in the faith. I also have the responsibility to warn my children of the dangers of false and destructive religions.
DON R. CAMP,
Cove, Oregon
Vouchers Questioned
The Supreme Court's recent declaration that vouchers are constitutional in public schools will merely intensify the conflict. Paul E. Peterson's claim (Liberty, July/August) that more equity (equality?) will result is questionable at best, so we have to be careful. Education data are sometimes unavailable, confusing, or occasionally distorted to support a specific argument; also, the Internet's 150-plus good education sites can baffle newcomers.
Private school pupils are very similar to public school pupils in some ways. But three quarters of private schools interview pupils and/or their parents for admission, want a record of grades and/or test scores, and require references pertaining to performance at grade level and good behavior. In addition, they reject 17 percent of applicants. No public school has this luxury of selection.
Private schools are more likely to be segregated and have a safe climate, fewer children changing schools, and similar classroom size. But they perform no better academically, as shown on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
Private schools are not accountable to the public even though they will now receive more public money. They do not publish their test scores in the local newspaper, as public schools do. Instead, they circulate favorable anecdotes from pleased parents.
With all these advantages—more than equity—private schools should produce far better academic achievement than public schools. They do not.
Peterson omits a great deal of important information in his article. Scandals have been frequent in private schools, involving finances, management, record keeping, and administrative duties, which public schools routinely handle properly. My favorite is the administrator who found voucher funds to buy her mother a nice house.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman is quoted as wanting to stir market competition. But he also said that a free society is undermined by the acceptance of a social responsibility other than to make as much money as possible for stockholders. Instead, most of us believe that public education's purpose is to provide a service to the nation, to teach all children what the nation has found desirable rather than to make money for speculators.
All 21-plus statewide elections have voted down vouchers by a margin of two to one. The only supporters are very conservative Christians who want their prayer and Bible reading in schools, capitalists who want some of the billions spent on education, and political conservatives.
Finally, Peterson is so certain that vouchers will succeed that he circulated his study of their use in New York City, Dayton, and Washington, D.C. His claim that Blacks in the last city did better than public school pupils was widely circulated in the press. The study had not been reviewed by the press, as is typical in good research, before it was distributed to the media. Coworker David Myers pointed out errors—the half of parents who accepted vouchers had higher income and education than public school parents, so they were not comparable. The conservative Olin Foundation had funded other research by Peterson.
Success in public schools is related to such factors as number of parents at home, type of community, state poverty level, access to good reading, homework, and absence from school. All these are beyond the control of schools, but the schools are blamed for failures.
"No Vouchers,"
Jacksonville, Florida
"Faith-based" Not Based on Legislation
As a regular reader of your magazine I have appreciated the various thought-provoking articles challenging state aid for church programs. I realize that much of the debate centers around a definition of what the framers of the first amendment really intended. So I have been following the public debate on the President's Faith-based Initiative very closely.
It seems to me that the FBI initiative is clearly designed to fund overtly spiritual church activity–and presents obvious constitutional dangers. Yes, on occasion statements have been made downplaying that intention; but if so there would be no need to advance beyond the already established charitable choice concept.
So I have watched with interest the efforts to legislate this initiative. Two years ago Congress passed HR 7 with little real debate. Senate passage seemed more troublesome till the so-called CARE Act emerged with bipartisan support. Amazingly the Act did not pass muster in 2002.
It seemed logical for a new effort to breeze through the Senate in 2003. Instead the President established FBI by Executive Order. This short circuiting of the democratic process is breathtaking given the issues involved. I pray that the Judiciary properly examines the issue. It seems our checks are out of balance.
LES MARTINEZ
Silver Spring, Maryland