Inter-Religious Thanksgiving offers positive communion

By TINA ARNOPOLE DRISKILL

The Ninth Annual Interreligious Thanksgiving Celebration once again will offer the Modesto/Stanislaus community an opportunity to come together in joyful mindfulness of the common threads that unite the human family on Monday, November 25, 7:15 p.m. in the Church of the Brethren, 2301 Woodland Avenue, Modesto.

The evening will include music, readings, prayers and other presentations from members of numerous local faith communities. The community Opus Handbell Choir also will return.

All persons who wish to share in a positive and enlightening sharing of the spirit of Thanksgiving are invited to attend. A freewill offering of canned goods and/or monetary donations will be taken during the evening to benefit Modesto’s Interfaith Ministries Food Bank.

Erosion of the Constitution

By WALLY WILLIAMS

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine asserts “What we obtain too cheap we esteem too lightly,” an adage as true today as it was in 1776. Paine’s war culminated in the longest lasting constitutional democracy ever established, and it was paid for in the dearest coin possible – the blood of patriots.

From the time of the confederation of States until the Civil War, Americans include many citizens who either fought in the Revolution or were related to someone who had: the freedoms won at such great cost were treasured all the more because of the personal association many people had with their creation. The strength of the nascent country was sorely tested by the War Between the States, but the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were gradually restored to white males, and were eventually extended to all citizens.

Today we are several generations removed from our country’s birth. Indeed, most of us are unlikely to count an American colonist among our ancestors. Perhaps because of this we cannot value, in a personal way, the exceptional restrictions on the powers of our government contained in the Bill of Rights: They were handed to us with our citizenship.

This is not to demean the efforts or valor of our modern war veterans, but none of our wars have been fought to retain our rights under the Constitution: Our country, our government, our way of life has never been threatened by a foreign regime. Not by Spain, Germany or Japan, and most certainly not by Korea or Viet Nam or any Western Hemisphere country.

Those rights explicitly defined in the Bill of Rights were mandated by the people of the newly United States to limit the powers of the government. Colonists had rebelled against the capricious authority of George III, and were determined that their experience with repressive government would not be repeated. The ratification of those ten amendments has been a thorn in the side of the executive branch ever since, especially in the area of law enforcement. It is very inconvenient for state, local and federal officers in all branches of government to have to respect the rights of the accused or to facilitate the free and open flow of information. As George W. so brilliantly put it, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."[i]

The argument is repeated ad nauseam that our constitutional rights are excessive in that they interfere with the quick and efficient provision of justice to The People, and it’s true – as long justice is equated with someone being punished for every crime, without regard to guilt or innocence. That equation is characteristic of a fascist government — it has no place in a free society.

Today our most important rights are threatened on multiple fronts:

• By the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the grotesquely misnamed USA Patriot Act), a grab bag of police-state schemes cobbled together by Attorney General John Ashcroft to capitalize on 9-11 fears and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001.

• The Executive branch, by using Executive Orders and emergency interim agency regulations as its tools of choice for combating terrorism, has effectively blindsided both the legislature and the judiciary. These Executive Orders and agency regulations have the force of law, even though some of them violate the U.S. Constitution, the laws of the United States and international law. In consequence, the “war on terror” is being conducted primarily by Executive fiat and the constitutional rights of both citizens and non-citizens have become “collateral damage”.[ii]

• By the cloak of secrecy that shrouds the many questionable acts of the government in this ersatz war. In a democracy, the actions of the government must be transparent or our ability to vote on policies and the people who create those policies becomes meaningless.[iii]

The War on Terror has seriously compromised the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights of citizens and non-citizens alike: an exhaustive and convincing treatise on this subject can be found in a report by The Center For Constitutional Rights at http://www.ccr-ny.org/whatsnew/civil_liberities.asp Their conclusions are frightening.

The siege mentality responsible for the current erosion of our constitutional rights assumes that freedom and safety are incompatible – that we cannot have both – but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a historian) to conclude that we have had exactly that for over two hundred years.

Each of us should reflect on the value we latecomers place on our civil liberties, and decide if we are willing, in Benjamin Franklin’s words, to “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety.” And then to ask if we deserve either.

The Constitution of the United States separates the federal government into three distinct branches and provides a system of "checks and balances" that prevent any one branch of government from accumulating excessive power.  

Information overload

By WALLY WILLIAMS

Many are feeling intimidated by the incredible amount of information presented to each day; newspapers, magazines, radio, television, the World Wide Web – even excluding duplicate stories. Because of the overwhelming glut, a lot of people have just quit trying to stay abreast of more than one or two stories letting the major media gurus decide which stories are important. It often comes as an epiphany when we receive a “behind the scenes analysis” from an alternative news source such as Fresh Air on NPR.

Progressive magazines such as Mother Jones and Z Magazine specialize in those “other stories” that may be as important as those that make the first section of a major newspaper. Of course, monthly publications can hardly be expected to keep us abreast of the breaking news of the day. Daily newspapers can approach this, but for up-to-the-minute updates we need electronic media. As noted above, however, the major radio and television broadcast networks filter the overwhelming mass of news stories that come in and present only those they think will appeal to the most viewers or listeners. In the case of television, the decision is too frequently made on the basis of whether the video feed is dramatic enough; entertaining, in other words. Except in rare cases, a full minute spent on a single story is more than we can expect. Similarly, network radio news depends on simplistic “sound bites” that cannot present an issue in perspective. As an information source, the broadcast news media are all but worthless, and while some newspapers are much better, very few will provide the background coverage of a breaking  story required for true understanding of the current developments.

Then there is that other source, the World Wide Web, and that’s what is needed to stay well-informed. It goes without saying that not everyone is computer oriented, and of those who are, not all are glued to their browsers 24/7. On-line, the WWW can give the same stories that the print and broadcast media present, plus all the ones they decided not to run. In as much depth as you want, and with viewpoints on all sides of an issue.

So what’s a person supposed to do? A number of online organizations present headlines and capsule summaries you can click through to the full text.

Newshounds will appreciate Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/; Z Magazine: http://www.zmag.org/; People For the American Way: http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/; and The Public Education Center: http://www.publicedcenter.org/.

Stories on these sites almost always include a link to the source article, often a newspaper published abroad (in English), although some of the articles are written by stringers or reporters for the organizations. There are many other sites that cater to different political persuasions, and they’re easily found using a search engine such as Google. Just type “news” and a modifier such as “world,” “national,” “canada,” “conservative,” “progressive,” and pick from the thousands of sites it finds, then add the ones you like to the “Favorites” or “Bookmarks” folder in your browser for easy future reference. This should open your window on the world without exhausting your patience: you’ll have the inside information on the topics that interest you, often a day before the mainstream media pick it up – if they ever do.

Prayer and public schools

By VASU MURTY

Public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize. Horace Mann, the father of our public school system, championed the elimination of sectarianism from American schools, largely accomplished by the 1840s. Bible reading, prayers or hymns in public schools were absent from most public schools by the end of the 19th century, after Catholic or minority-religion immigrants objected to Protestant bias in public schools.

As early as the 1850s, the Superintendent of Schools of New York state ordered that prayers could no longer be required as part of public school activities. The Cincinnati Board of Education ruled in 1869 that “religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, was prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati.” Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt called for “absolutely nonsectarian public schools.” Roosevelt stated that it is “not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in those schools.”

In McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), the Supreme Court struck down religious instruction in public schools. In Tudor vs. Board of Education of Rutherford, the Court let stand a lower court ruling that the practice of allowing volunteers to distribute Gideon Bibles at public schools was unconstitutional.

In Engel vs. Vitale (1962), the Court ruled that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. In Abington Township School District vs. Schempp (1963), Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools were ruled unconstitutional. Posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms was declared unconstitutional in Stone vs. Graham (1980). In Lee vs. Weisman (1992), the Court ruled that prayers at public school graduation ceremonies are an establishment of religion.

Although state-sanctioned prayer in schools was found unconstitutional, the high court did not seek to remove all study about religion. In fact, in Abington Township School District vs. Schempp (1963), the justices maintained that a student’s education is not complete without instruction on the influence of religion on history, culture and literature.

Justice Tom Clark, representing the court, wrote: “Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.” Clark added that government could not force the exclusion of religion in schools “in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion.” The court’s ruling suggested merely that a student’s family, not government, is responsible for decisions about religious instructions and guidance. There was respect, not hostility, toward religion in the court’s ruling.

Justice Clark concluded: “The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.”

In 1995, a joint statement of current law regarding religion in public schools was published by a variety of religious and civil liberties organizations. This statement served as the basis for U.S. Department of Education guidelines intended to alleviate concerns about constitutional religious activities in schools. Here are general rules concerning what school personnel and students may do:

1. Students have the right to pray or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive.

2. The history of religion and comparative religion are permissible school subjects so long as the approach is objective and serves a legitimate educational purpose.

3. Students may study the role of religion in the history of the United States.

4. Schools may discuss various religious groups‚ beliefs about the origin of life on Earth in comparative religion or social studies classes.

5. Students may express their religious beliefs in the forms of reports, homework and artwork so long as such expression meets the other criteria of the assignment.

6. Religious or anti-religious remarks made in the ordinary course of classroom discussion or student presentations and that are germane are permissible, but students do not have the right to give sermons to a captive audience.

7. Students have the right to distribute religious literature to their classmates, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

8. Students have the right to speak to, and attempt to persuade their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.

9. Student religious clubs in secondary schools must be permitted to meet and to have equal access to campus media to announce their meetings.

10. Public schools may teach objectively about religious holidays and may celebrate the secular aspects of the holiday.

11. Students may wear religious messages on clothing, just as they may wear religious attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves.

12. Students may be released for religious instruction off school premises.

13. Students may read the Bible or other religious literature during their free time at school.

Faith groups that support the First Amendment and oppose government-sponsored prayer in public schools include: National Council of Churches; American Baptist Churches, USA; Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); The Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Mennonite Central Committee USA; Presbyterian Church (USA); General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; Unitarian Universalist Association; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; Central Conference of American Rabbis; National Council of Jewish Women; North American Council for Muslim Women; Soka Gakkai International USA.

Most religious denominations, across the theological spectrum, have issued formal statements supporting the Supreme Court’s prayer and Bible-reading decisions. These people of faith value the hard-won freedom of conscience that belongs to all of us.