2010/2011 Public Forum Topic Analysis

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

Writers & Contributors John Lewis, Sean Mumper, Todd Rainey, Sarah Spiker, Christian Tarsney

Editor: Glenn Prince Managing Editor: Mike Bietz Publisher: Victor Jih 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 1 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JOHN LEWIS 2 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SEAN MUMPER 16 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY TODD RAINEY 24 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SARAH SPIKER-RAINEY 38 TOPIC ANALYSIS BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY 48 GENERAL EVIDENCE 67 PRO EVIDENCE 72 CON EVIDENCE 90 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 2 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JOHN LEWIS

Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It might seem paradoxical to debate a topic about confronting sensitive religious issues when discussing that topic requires the confrontation of sensitive religious issues. Nevertheless, prepare for the meta-debate, or the debate over debate. This topic will force Public Forum debaters to consider what their event should look like: what sort of issues they would like to discuss, how those issues should be discussed, and ultimately, what the purpose of debate is in the first place. Instead of sitting on the sidelines while their coaches determine the course of Public Forum, this topic puts control of the event directly in the hands of the debaters. Along the way, debaters will discuss issues like educational policy, the separation of church and state, the treatment of religion in a pluralistic society, and the enduring importance of religion to modern life, for better or worse. Suffice to say that thereʼs a bit more meat to chew on with this topic than people have given it credit for.

To understand this topic, itʼs important to know why weʼre debating it in the first place. Iʼll start by explaining the controversy over the initial November topic—regarding the Islamic community center near Ground Zero—and what it means for debaters on this topic. Iʼll address some of the concerns that this topic is “too LD” or “too policy” by claiming that arguments are arguments, and that this topic really strikes at the heart of public forum debate. Then Iʼll delve directly into the topic by discussing what it means, and accordingly, what sort of arguments the PRO and CON should be making. The importance of making arguments on this topic should not be understated; the fact that academics and intellectuals donʼt discuss this topic directly means that debaters must 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 3 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com “do their own work” and rely on logic and critical thinking rather than the opinions of others. Letʼs get started.

Whatʼs all the fuss about?

Anyone who watches cable news or reads Sarah Palinʼs twitter feed (guilty on both counts) should know that the construction of an Islamic community center several blocks from Ground Zero has possessed this country for several months now. The “Park51” project, originally named the Cordoba House, was spearheaded by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf under the auspices of the Cordoba Initiative, and was set to include space for religious and secular activity, akin to a YMCA. Of course, Ground Zero has a special significance in the American psyche for what happened there on September 11, 2001. For that reason, the National Forensic League decided to put the issue in the form of a topic, and the original November topic read: “Resolved: An Islamic community center should be built near Ground Zero.”

The topic asked whether or not the center should be built to sidestep the constitutional question of whether or not the builders had the constitutional right to build the center. Most will agree that the builders unquestionably have that right via the first amendment. Thus, the PRO would have to argue that building the community center would promote religious tolerance and a dialogue between faiths, that religious minorities should feel free to exercise their rights in a context of popular resistance, and that Muslims should not be held collectively responsible for 9/11. The CON would have to argue respect for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and the emotions of the country as a whole, that the center would inflame religious bigotry and conflict, and potentially engage the nature of Islam itself. Therein rests the problem.

The topic immediately incited strong criticism. Opponents argued that the CON would be forced to make arguments that were essentially bigoted and attributed responsibility 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 4 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com for the 9/11 attacks to Muslims as a whole, and that arguing against the center sent the message that religious minorities should not exercise their rights under popular opposition. Even if debaters engaged the topic in a respectful fashion, which wouldnʼt necessarily be the case, the very nature of the CONʼs position was offensive. Moreover, opponents claimed that it put Muslim students in the uncomfortable position of being singled out by the topic and forced to argue against their religion. Administrators and parents might pull their students out of the activity even if the students wanted to debate the topic. Still others argued that the topic was irrelevant, a fictional controversy ginned up by Republican extremists to win votes. Supporters of the topic argued in response that it was unfair and elitist to reject a topic that many Americans have been fervently discussing, and that the CONʼs position was not necessarily bigoted in nature. For proponents, this topic presented a chance to teach debaters how to respectfully engage…a “sensitive religious issue” with arguments and respect. In any case, the NFL pulled the topic within 48 hours, and gave us the new topic to allow us all to debate the topic ourselves in round.

Understanding the Islamic community center topic, and forming your own arguments for why that topic should or should not have been debated, will be critical to debating well on the new topic. The topic provides the clearest and most recent example of a topic that engaged a sensitive religious issue and what that would entail. Rather than being forced to deal in vague abstractions, debaters have a concrete example to dig into. In fact, I bet that many PRO and CON teams will use the Islamic community center topic in round as a sort of “plan” or example that tests whether or not we should discuss sensitive religious issues. If you want to read more about the debate over the topic, the comments here: http://blog.pfdebate.com/2010/10/02/november-2010-nfl-topic-changed/ and here: http://blog.pfdebate.com/2010/10/01/november-2010-topic-announced/ as well as on the LD forums here: http://forum.lddebate.org/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=1200 can be particularly informative. Of course, all of this demonstrates one simple fact: that this topic is the most current of current events, and holds deep significance for debaters in Public Forum and elsewhere. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 5 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

How is this relevant to Public Forum debate?

Iʼve already answered this question by demonstrating that this topic forces debaters to discuss current events ripped directly from the headlines, which any Public Forum debater should feel comfortable doing. However, if you donʼt believe me, Iʼll explain how I see Public Forum debate by going back to the original purpose of the activity—which should give you some hints on how you should go about debating the nature of Public Forum. Critics of this topic have complained that they would rather debate about real- world issues than debate over debate. Others have said that this topic forces debaters to consider ethical issues more suited for LD, or “theory” issues more suited for Policy. Let me encourage you to get away from these shallow perspectives. This topic doesnʼt force you to grapple with questions like the nature of “justice” or “morality.” Nor would you find any “religious discussion bad” theory in a Policy theory file. Neither LD nor policy debaters have discussed anything like this topic. However, you might try asking the LDʼers and Policy debaters you know for their opinions: they might be able to offer some tips on how to go about debating issues that involve ethical questions (as religious issues always do) or issues of what the activity of debate should look like. Remember, arguments are arguments, and the best debaters on this topic will be able to pull together a lot of different perspectives to form cogent arguments.

Similarly, youʼre going to have to reach out beyond the normal research you might do for Public Forum. Itʼs going to be hard to do a Google News search and find some easy statistics on sensitive religious issues. Youʼll notice that a lot of the evidence in this brief is cut from law reviews and education journals. This is because there is a not-so- surprisingly robust literature surrounding the place of religion in schools and the place of religion in our society, with advocates on both sides. You should read these opinions and think about how the arguments that theyʼre making could be applied to this topic. For instance, an author might claim that religion is based on faith, rather than reason, and that faith cannot be questioned. If thatʼs true, then how could we debate religious 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 6 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com issues which hinge on a personʼs faith? Or someone might argue that tons of real-world controversies involve religious beliefs (such as abortion, gay marriage, etc) and that we canʼt just ignore the role of religion. An educational theorist would say students need to learn about religion to improve their understanding of these controversies. If thatʼs true, then debating religion would give debaters a chance at this sort of education. See what I mean? There are a number of big-picture, real-world issues that this topic involves. You must think outside of the box, with an eye to how these issues can be applied to this topic. This topic will separate the real debaters from those who are incapable of backing up their beliefs.

However, the key issue is what Public Forum debate should look like, because the topic asks what can be up for debate in a Public Forum resolution. So, a lot of the evidence in this brief is cut from the early Rostrums which explain the reasons behind the creation of Public Forum debate, and how the founders saw the event they were creating. I encourage you to read some of this literature, because itʼs actually pretty fascinating and gives some insight into why we do what we do.

Public Forum debate—first named “Controversy”, and then “Ted Turner” debate—was created to model the sort of debates that occur in town halls and on cable news shows. Think “Crossfire”, or “Hannity and Colmes”, or any other talk show. The truth is that the other debate events were becoming less accessible to the public every day, and it posed a challenge for the NFL in gaining new students.

Roberts, Donus. Retired nine diamond coach at Watertown HS. “Controversy: NFLʼs New Debate Event.” Rostrum, November 2002.

Why is NFL Considering a New Debate Division? The NFL began as a debate organization with extemp, oratory and interp added in that order… NFL's current growth is entirely in individual events. LD is growing marginally. Policy debate is falling precipitously. The net result is an organization on a plateau… And NFL has no event to market to the media, whether the media is CNN, CSPAN, cable access TV, service clubs or parents. Policy debate and LD debate have become specialized, filled with code-words that ordinary people do not understand on 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 7 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com topics people don't wish to hear. Debaters often talk beyond the speed limit. Extemp has also become a documentation speech, oratory has become interp, interp has become filled with innuendo and explicitness. (full card in evidence section)

Along these lines, the topic is meant to focus on a debatable current event, rather than a proposition of value or policy common to the other events.

Durkee, John. Debate Coach at Laramie HS. “Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds.” Rostrum. January 2003.

Ted Turner Debate topics have an immediacy, and urgency unlike traditional debate topics. While different topics will have more of a policy or more of a values focus, which will show in the tactics of debating, each topic shares the immediacy of todayʼs news. Either form of topic in a Ted Turner Debate round will not likely be adjudicated upon the merits of an implementation of a particular policy or an underlying universal value, but instead will be evaluated within the framework of contemporary media metaphors: “How do I feel about the topic?” “Which debater is more trustworthy?” “Who has the better ethos?” Finally, the non-expert judge will bring an interpretive criteria of the common understanding of the topic.

These same standards guide topic selection today. In fact, the NFL recently clarified this in an article in the Rostrum following the release of the November topic.

“A Closer Look at Public Forum Debate Topic Selection.” Rostrum, October 2010. http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/1010_012_013.pdf

The committee proposed that the wording of Public Forum Debate resolutions should be evaluated under the following principles: timeliness, debatability, clarity, availability of research on both sides, fair ground, balance (avoiding side bias), media relevance, community and student interest, and public understandability (also known as the “reasonable person standard”).

Rather than insisting on specialized debate judges, Public Forum uses informed citizens. This forces debaters to adapt and make common-sense style arguments.

Durkee, John. Debate Coach at Laramie HS. “Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds.” Rostrum. January 2003.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 8 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Lay judges provide the test of an informed citizen judge… More practically, the desired stance of the debaters is audience exploration. In this new event the judge will have longer-sustained eye contact with the debaters. Reciprocating debaters will use the information provided non-verbally by the judges to measure argument success adjusting to the clues provided by the judge. Practice, then, focuses upon reading a judge.

However, debate is still debate, and debaters must use critical thinking as well as communication skills.

Shuster, Kate. Director of Claremont Colleges National Debate Outreach. “Saying ʻNoʼ to the Punditocracy: A Critique of Public Forum Debate.” Rostrum, April 2004.

Ideally, debate training will prepare students to become active and informed citizens and members of their communities. Through participation in debating, they will be able to critically analyze arguments in public and private arenas. Students will learn to identify the assumptions of arguments, to question the validity of sources of information, and otherwise perform the basic skills that are commonly referred to as “critical thinking” skills.

All of this should be second nature for those who have done Public Forum debate. My point here is that the topic directly engages the question of what Public Forum debate should look like, and others have spent considerable time trying to answer that question. Public Forum debate, including its topics, is all about accessibility, timeliness, and critical thinking.

Put another way, these are all goals that Public Forum debate seeks to achieve. Insofar as the topic is part of the activity, it should strive to maximize these goals as well. I suspect that the PRO will try to focus on accessibility and timeliness, while the CON will try to focus on timeliness and critical thinking. If our goal is to maximize the people who are debating, then it seems like we should avoid topics which alienate potential students and citizen judges who are unwilling to let their religious beliefs be up for debate. Surely there are other, more important current events than religious issues. However, if our goal is to discuss events ripped from the headlines, this may well include sensitive religious issues; we live in a post-9/11 age, in the era of the culture wars and religious evangelism. If our goal is to think critically about social issues, then why should religion 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 9 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com get a free pass? Perhaps thinking critically about the “big questions” is the most important goal of all. And in fact, these are exactly the arguments people made for or against the Islamic community center topic. Now weʼre getting somewhere.

Nailing down what the topic means

Weʼve already talked about what “high school Public Forum Debate resolutions” are supposed to achieve. That leaves a few more words in the topic to break down. All definitions are taken from dictionary.com

“Should” generally means that it would be good idea, that it would be desirable, or perhaps more strongly, that it is morally obligatory or imperative to do a particular thing. I donʼt think this will be an important issue in debates. You should just remember that the PRO on this topic is like the CON on other topics; the PRO demonstrates “should not” and the CON demonstrates “should”.

“Confront” could mean a couple of things: “to face in hostility or defiance”, as in being confrontational. “To present for acknowledgment or contradiction” strikes most directly at the heart of this topic. The topic isnʼt about being hostile toward religion, but rather making issues that deal with religion the subject of debate.

Itʼs unclear, however, how direct this confrontation is; does the topic mean discussing religion itself? Issues that might have a tangential connection to religious belief (like, every issue)? The word “sensitive” might help us here, but the closest we get is “requiring tact or caution; delicate; touchy”. Well, almost any issue requires tact or caution.

The most reasonable reading of the topicʼs question is whether or not we should discuss a religiously-linked issue if there is a risk that some might take offense. The CON probably does not have to defend discussing “Resolved: Islam is true”, but more issues 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 10 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com like the original November topic or a hypothetical abortion or gay marriage topic. Remember that itʼs also a question of whether the topic should discuss an issue, and not whether or not debaters are allowed to discuss an issue, so the PRO wouldnʼt have to defend debaters censoring themselves whenever they get close to religion. Given that this is Public Forum debate, I would encourage you to focus less on quibbling about what the topic means and more this core substantive issue.

PRO: Topics should not discuss sensitive religious issues.

There are a couple core points that the PRO wants to make on this topic: that religious discussion hurts feelings, that it hurts participation, that religion isnʼt important/shouldnʼt be the focus of political discussion, that biased judges will hurt the ability of debaters to adapt, and that schools, especially public schools, should stay away from religious issues.

Remember that religion is generally based on faith, although there are certainly arguments for religion grounded in reason. Individuals are often brought up in a religious tradition that forms a core aspect of their identity, and that many are uncomfortable to defend their religious beliefs. There are a couple of different ways you can take this as the PRO. The first is that because religious belief is so intractable and important, discussing peopleʼs religious beliefs could strike some as offensive. Having your religion called into question can be deeply emotional. Discussing religious beliefs and political beliefs are two fundamentally different things. While students might feel comfortable discussing the Iraq war or taxation, discussing religion is qualitatively different. This could carry the disadvantage of making debate a hostile or unwelcoming place for some, or even forcing otherwise qualified debaters out of the activity. See: the Islamic community center topic and Muslims.

Even if the students are willing to compete, parents and administrators might not let them. Many schools are afraid to do anything that could be seen as promoting religion. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 11 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Many parents feel that religion is a private matter between themselves and their children, and not something the debate community has any business interrogating. In fact, many debate coaches received angry phone calls in the aftermath of the Islamic community center topic arguing that students shouldnʼt be forced to debate the issue. This strikes right at the heart of the accessibility issue mentioned earlier. While the CON might argue in response that this impact is likely to be minimal, and that we shouldnʼt tarnish the nature of debate by avoiding controversy, the PRO can focus on the end goal of debate—to bring the value of critical thinking to as many students as possible. If that requires avoiding sensitive religious issues, then so be it. Remember also that since these are “sensitive” religious issues, the overall number of issues weʼre prevented from debating might be pretty small. The word “sensitive” is really the PROʼs best friend here.

Another perspective entirely might argue that religion just isnʼt all that important. Again, religious belief is a private matter; it shouldnʼt have any bearing on how the government or society behaves (although of course it does). We should discuss issues that are relevant to everybody. For example, itʼs hard to say that the Islamic community center is the number one issue affecting America today. Weʼre involved in two wars, the economy is tanking, the deficit is growing…maybe we should talk about these issues instead. You can bring in some of the literature on the separation of church and state, and that the government should make decisions for reasons that are justifiable to all rather than private religious belief. The idea of the “neutral public square” free of religious discussion could be informative here. Itʼs interesting because you could take a sort of “conservative” or “liberal” stance on the issue: either arguing that we shouldnʼt discuss religion because religious beliefs arenʼt up for debate, or because public issues should be discussed in secular terms. This goes back to the purpose of Public Forum debate; to discuss issues of real-world concern. You rarely see talk show hosts confronting sensitive religious issues, because that will bore some viewers and alienate others. Religious issues also donʼt involve lots of statistics or empirical evidence that would arguably be more educational for debaters to discuss.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 12 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com As a more practical matter, lay judges often have strong feelings on religion, and might not feel comfortable having their beliefs criticized by high school debaters. The argument in response is “well, read your judge and adapt!” However, given that religion is more divisive and more deeply linked to personhood, it seems unfair to force debaters to take an unwinnable position. Would you want to debate abortion in front of the Pope? While judges should strive to be objective, we all know that sometimes that just doesnʼt happen. And given the strength of potential biases, Public Forum rounds become all about the coin flip to see who can get the “correct” side in the judgeʼs mind. Should debate really be this arbitrary, and does this really serve the goal of getting debaters to adapt to their judges? Remember again, sensitive religious issues—youʼre not going to win if you offend your judge, and with religion, that could be unavoidable.

Some of you might be thinking that there are some constitutional concerns associated with discussing religion in public schools. I donʼt think this argument is all that fruitful—in my research, thereʼs no problem with discussing religion in schools in the context of debate so long as teachers arenʼt forcing religion upon their students. Check out the Supreme Courtʼs decision in Abington School District v. Schempp—schools can discuss religion if itʼs in an academic rather than a devotional context. However, the principle of the issue, that public schools shouldnʼt discuss religion, could still be valid. The mission of the school system should be secular in nature, rather that discussing religious beliefs. Here, debaters will have to ask what the role of education is, rather than just the role of the topic or the role of Public Forum debate.

All of these points were made in the discussion of the Islamic community center topic. However, in my opinion, the best argument against the Islamic community center topic was that it singled out a particular religion, and that the majority of the opinion on one side of the sensitive religion issue was bigoted in nature. So, one could support discussing sensitive religious issues while still opposing the Islamic community center topic. Keep this in mind—while the Islamic community center topic illuminates some points the PRO wants to make, the debate isnʼt exactly the same. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 13 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

CON: Topics should discuss sensitive religious issues.

Along the same lines, there are a couple core points the CON wants to make, and all of them directly interact with PRO arguments. The CON should argue that we need to confront religious issues, that itʼs impossible to avoid these issues, that students and judges can handle the discussion, and that discussing religious issues improves certain skills like tolerance and critical thinking.

Why should we talk about religion? Many argue that religious belief is holding society back, and that religious arguments should be held to strict scrutiny. Check out the writings of the new atheists: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. They make strong arguments for the problems that religion causes and why religion should be held to the test of rational scrutiny. These include that religion stokes conflict and war, that religion justifies sexism and bigotry, that religion promotes an unscientific approach to issues, and that religion is just false. If these points are true, and religion causes significant social harm, then it would seem important to discuss and criticize religion rather than giving it a free pass. Here, the CON can access some “big impact” type debate by talking about the consequences of religious thinking in society.

Itʼs also just true, however, that religion is vitally important to modern society. It rests at the core of many social and political issues. It forms the foundation for many peopleʼs beliefs of morality and justice. Many Americans profess some form of religious belief. Given these points, perhaps itʼs impossible to avoid discussing sensitive religious issues. Or maybe itʼs undesirable, because it would rule out discussing many important issues. Of course, the PRO can argue that because religion is so deeply embedded in our culture, itʼs pointless to try and discuss it, and that students wonʼt be capable of doing so. However, if discussion of issues that touch on religion is inevitable, maybe we should bite the bullet and discuss religion without fear.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 14 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com The CON will also want to argue that students can handle these discussions. High school students are used to having their feelings hurt by now, and many debaters are capable of seeing both sides of an issue, even a religious one. As for the risk of bigotry, thereʼs a risk with every sensitive issue—the key is coaches encouraging debaters to elevate the public dialogue and make rational and respectful arguments. Parents too should encourage their students to try rather than sheltering them from the world. We should put our trust in students that they can handle these issues. Debate is all about controversy. Judges should also be trusted to ignore their biases like any other sensitive issue, and if theyʼve volunteered to judge debates on a topic it could be presumed that they see both sides of an issue and are capable of being fair.

However, the real CON arguments hinge on tolerance and critical thinking, and here we start to talk about the value of debate itself. Debate forces students to think critically about their beliefs and learn about the beliefs of others. Rather than acting on the basis of irrational prejudice, debaters should be encouraged to examine even their most deeply-held positions. If debaters can see both sides of contentious political issues, and can even question ideas like the free market, democracy, and the legal system, then they can certainly think a bit more deeply about religion. This could have numerous educational benefits. By debating both sides of a sensitive religious issue, debaters could learn to tolerate the deeply-held beliefs of others by learning why they believe what they believe. In this religiously-divided world, that could be the key to global peace and justice. There is actually significant evidence on the importance of teaching world religions and tolerance in public schools. Accordingly, by forcing students to debate both sides of a religious issue, debaters learn critical thinking skills rather than accepting ideas at face value. The goal, of course, is constructing better systems of belief, and creating better students and citizens along the way. Refusing to discuss religious belief sends the message that some things shouldnʼt be up for debate—is this a message we want to send?

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 15 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com And again, these are all arguments that people made with respect to the Islamic community center topic. Remember what I said about how the arguments arenʼt perfectly representative, though. Iʼll also mention that both the PRO and the CON on this topic run a similar risk of crafting arguments that could be offensive to some. Arguments that suggest we should challenge religion, or arguments that say people are too biased to think critically about their religion, may strike some as offensive. The challenge for debaters will be making respectful and rational arguments that go right to the core of this topic.

Conclusion

I hope that this topic analysis has started you on the path of asking why you do what you do. In addition to challenging deeply-held religious beliefs, this topic forces you to challenge your own beliefs about debate. It truly is the ultimate meta-debate, but paradoxically, if we really believe in the value of debate then we should be willing to hold these ideals to scrutiny as well. This, of course, is what the CON will essentially be arguing—that nothing should be off limits. The key for the PRO will be crafting a nuanced position that explains why debate should not cover sensitive religious issues, while still allowing for discussion about controversial issues in general. If itʼs not “Controversy”, then itʼs not “Public Forum”. Make Ted Turner proud. 

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 16 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SEAN MUMPER

High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

I. Initial Thoughts

This is an interesting topic unlike anything Public Forum has seen, and will probably never see again. Theory has, for the most part, stayed out of Public Forum, and honestly I think that is a positive thing. However, this topic will force debaters to confront the “meta” issues that surround their activity, which is a refreshing change from the somewhat myopic topics of the past.

I foresee Public Forum debaters being uncomfortable with the thought of debating about the topic selection process. Hopefully, debaters embrace the chance to have an input in the direction of their activity.

In addition, debaters unnerved by “theory” do not need to see this resolution in that way. A different reading of the resolution, and one that I think all judges could/would identify with, is, “it does more harm than good to debate religious issues.” The debate would be less about the topic selection process, and instead focus on the benefits of debating issues that people have strong convictions over. Itʼs up to the debaters how much they want this topic to be about public forum itself.

II. Topic Wording The topic is, for the most part, straightforward. However, I think there is one important term that debaters will need to think about before they go ahead with research, case writing, and practice rounds. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 17 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com “Sensitive Religious Issue” – The first question debaters should ask themselves is what does this mean, and how will they define it in the debate. The word “sensitive” has purpose here, and should be defined to create a brightline between the various types of religious issues.

This term creates some confusion for me. I teach AP Government and Civics, and discuss religious issues in class. However, those issues are about the relationship between government and religion. My class focuses on the first amendment; namely, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. In discussing this, we sometimes confront issues intimate to religions, such as prayer and worship. However, Iʼve never had a student feel uncomfortable or had a situation like what resulted from the original November topic choice.

I think this can help to understand the appropriate line for what constitutes a sensitive religious issue. Government treatment of religions or religious expression ought not be considered topical, in my opinion. “Sensitive” should be reserved for discussions about the ʻgoodnessʼ or ʻbadnessʼ of religious beliefs or actions. So while a debate over prayer at public schools does not meet the brightline, the merits of prayer would.

Here is another example – the city of Hialeah decided to prohibit the Church of Lukum Babalu from sacrificing animals as part of their worship. This case is an excellent example for first amendment free exercise. There are two questions one could debate. First, if it is legally acceptable to prohibit animal sacrifice. Second, if it is “good” (morally, ethically, whatever) for the Church to sacrifice animals as part of worship. Under the distinction laid out above, the resolution is about the latter, and not the former, question. This distinction creates a fairer debate. I donʼt think it is plausible to expect anyone to defend a refusal to discuss or debate the merits of religion in its interaction with the state. This is analogous to saying donʼt discuss the first amendment. Thatʼs ridiculous. The debate should be about if public forum debate should confront religious issues from the religions perspective. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 18 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com III. The role of research and evidence Public Forum often picks topics that are policy based and contemporary. I took a list at the list of topics chosen over the past 3 years. Overwhelmingly, each topic had received extensive news coverage in the month or two previous. Some topics were in the process of being voted on by Congress.

This has had the effect of simplifying the research base and topic literature. Newspapers (NY Times), Magazines (The Economist), Think Tanks (Brookings), Journals (Foreign Affairs), and online news (Google News), were obvious starting points. Pro and Con arguments were easily accessible with a few searches. Debaters will need to confront that their traditional sources may not be as useful, if at all. This isnʼt to say quality evidence could not come from the above sources. Those sources, however, will need to be supplemented with publications public forum debaters are not used to using.

Communication journals are the best place to start. They are often theory based, and discuss many of the issues the topic brings up. A quick search from one such journal, “Communication Quarterly,” found a number of great articles. Actually, the first I clicked was a study, involving college students, regarding the quality of interaction/discussion when religious issues were involved.1

Other journals to think about are education and social science. From these you will discover more articles than you could hope to read on pedagogical theory, critical thinking, and debate/discussion. A quick search from education journals immediately finds a discussion of teaching religion in public schools.2 What I find most helpful is

1 Stewart, Robert A., and K. David Roach. "Argumentativeness, Religious Orientation, and Reactions to Argument Situations Involving Religious versus Nonreligious Issues." Communication Quarterly 41.1 (1993): 26-39. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

2 Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 19 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com studies done scientifically that produce quantifiable results. Just because the topic is more theory than policy doesnʼt mean that there are no place for statistics. Further, Google Scholar is a great friend. To steal from Family Guy, it is the “smartest thing anyone has ever said about anything.” Be sure to understand how to properly use search terms.

IV. Pro Thoughts I think the resolution is more difficult for the pro than the con. Not only does the con support the better literature base, but also it seems intuitive that debate should confront sensitive issues. Regardless, the pro has a number of quality arguments at their disposal.

A. Donʼt debate religious issues

During the 2005-2006 school year, the Jan/Feb topic for LD was “Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state.” Although seemingly different, the arguments made by the affirmative are useful to the Pro. One argument in particular advanced that Religion was incompatible with Democracy because of religions reliance on faith. Non-religious arguments can be evaluated by comparing data. For example, to answer the question of if NATO has had a positive effect on Afghani women, debaters could compare evidence. Studies could be done that test the hypothesis, and based on the evidence; a judge could evaluate the “truth” of said statement. For the most part, religion does not hold itself to the same rigorous scientific investigation that non- religious arguments do. There is no experiment that I know of, that could serve to determine if a Christian God exists.

Richard Dawkins is someone you will become familiar with on the topic. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist that is also a pronounced atheist. He has written a number of books that are critical of religion. One particular quote is, “Faith is belief in spite of, even

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 20 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Dawkins is a little over the top, but his argument is that religion relies on faith, rather than hard evidence.

Why does this matter? It matters because the resolution asks what type of topics we should have. Religious issues, by their very nature, generally cannot be proven “true” or “false.” Just think about it for a second. Would you want to debate the resolution “Hinduism is correct,” or “Jesus Christ helped a bunch of people?” Presumably not. Individuals hold strong feelings about religious issues.

Continuing, there is something to be said for the quality of the debate. In LD in policy, a good way to determine the best interpretation of a debate practice is to evaluate the impact it would have on the debate round itself. A definition of a word that only gives the affirmative one bad argument is considered a poor interpretation.

Iʼd maintain that the quality of a debate stems from the topic literature. If there is enough good evidence out there, as long as the debaters put in the time, the debate round should be of high quality. Key here is an abundance of scholarly, peer-reviewed work that serves to substantiate the arguments. This body of evidence is few and far between on debates over sensitive religious issues. There are excellent sources regarding government vs. religion, freedom of speech/worship, etc. Sensitive religious issues, on the other hand, have a poor research base. A great example is the topic that was replaced. Both sides of the community center controversy were guilty of overblown, partisan rhetoric. Certainly this occurs with all topics, but these fringe sources are the minority in an ocean of good literature. With sensitive religious issues, itʼs the opposite. For every “good” article I found, there were 100 comprised of political pundits spouting off useless ideological biases.

Debating about sensitive religious issues makes the debate bad. An issue can definitely be important, but suffer from the necessary qualities that make it a good public forum 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 21 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com topic. The access to literature on sensitive religious issues is one of those problematic topics.

V. Con Thoughts A. Debating sensitive religious issues One of the main affirmative arguments will be that the topic literature for sensitive religious issues consists of liberal/conservative pundits. This information is often of the knee-jerk bias type, without regard for facts or accuracy. If this is true, doesnʼt that make a greater case for why these issues ought be discussed? Obviously, education about sensitive religious issues is necessary, and the search for truth that occurs in debate is conducive to that. Their needs to be a medium to correct misgivings, and the debate round can function in that capacity. If, as the affirmative claims, there is misinformation and intolerance towards religious issues, then debate has the proactive responsibility to take these issues heads on.

Furthermore, I donʼt think any pro team would say that we could never discuss sensitive religious issues. If that is the case, push them on where it should happen. The debate round seems to be the best place for that discussion to occur because of the safety of the environment. There are rules in debate with regards to time limits. Generally, opposing teams do not interrupt each other outside of the cross-examination period. Judges are told to keep their personal bias out of the final decision. At the end of the round, teams often shake hands. Many opposing teams are friends with each other. Iʼve never been afraid to express an opinion or take a side, as a competitor or a judge. Contrast this with what could happen at a more informal event, or in a discussion. Debate is the absolute best place to discuss religious issues.

Ultimately, debate may help religion more than hurt it. To have true tolerance and be responsible citizens demands that we understand all sides of an issue. Sweeping issues under the rug because their potential to offend only encourages and sustains a culture of misinformation that created the topic conflict in the first place. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 22 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com B. Limiting debate

There is something inherently suspect about calling an issue “off-limits” for discussion, and negative teams should play this argument up. First, it is important to remember that not all beliefs are created equal. Richard Dawkins is useful again here. Dawkins finds it problematic that arguments can escape criticism if labeled “religious.” Many of us would like to think that religious beliefs are all good and proper, but thatʼs not the case. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church protest soldiers funerals, blaming societies tolerance of homosexuality as the reason for the death of the armed forces. While the Westboro Church is considered a fringe church, itʼs still a religious belief. The point here is that sensitive religious beliefs can be as troubling as beneficial. Nothing should be immune from debate or criticism simply because it is religious.

Along the same lines, it seems hard to justify a standard of when topics could be appropriate. A common pro argument is that students and judges alike feel strongly about religious issues. It would be difficult, if not impossible for switch-side debating to occur, or for rounds to have fair adjudication. The line seems very blurry. The first topic of the year was about offshore oil drilling. This was not long after the BP pipeline explosion, effecting millions of people in the gulf region. Undoubtedly, many debaters were directly or indirectly affected, and I would think that judges in that area would have strong opinions about oil drilling after the disaster. However, that did not stop that topic from being debated. Strong convictions do not warrant the removal of, or silence on, a topic. Looking at previous Public Forum topics, I see issues like NCLB, terrorism, and affirmative action, among a host of others. Those are all controversial topics. There is nothing about being religious issues that would preclude discussion.

Finally, going back to the roots of debate with philosophy could pay off. In John Stewart Millʼs On Liberty, he argues strongly for freedom of thought and expression. “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 23 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”3 Important is a critical assessment of all things, which only happens when ideas are submitted to the marketplace of ideas. Mill is very adamant that societal progress is dependant on said marketplace. Authors as diverse as Jurgen Habermas to Thomas Jefferson have all waxed eloquently about the need for open, public discourse on all issues.

C. The purpose of public forum

The other topic analysis writers have gone far into depth here, so I will be brief. Considering the resolution asks what Public Forum ought do, a necessary discussion will be the purpose of the event. Negative teams should stress that debating sensitive religious issues is in line with the general philosophy of the event. From itʼs beginning, POFO has confronted important, current issues and discussed them in a way that the “common person” could understand. If a sensitive religious issue meets those criteria, it makes an excellent public forum topic. Be ready to cut old rostrum articles to better explain what public forum is, or what it was intended to be.

VI. Closing Thoughts I like this topic. Recently, public forum has become more evidence heavy, with teams throwing out statistics left and right. This resolution will, for the most part, not have any of that. It will test your critical thinking ability and demand that you think outside the box. If anything, cherish the opportunity to determine the direction your event takes. Good luck!

3 Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869; Bartleby.com, 1999. www.bartleby.com/130/. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 24 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TOPIC ANALYSIS BY TODD RAINEY

Resolved: High School Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues.

It goes without saying that the change here from the “Islamic cultural center” resolution to this is an unprecedented one, and the NFL office is certainly aware of that. In a letter sent out to district chairs, the office explains that the office received hundreds of phone calls and emails expressing concern “that our Muslim student members could not and should not be asked to debate an issue that singled out their religion or asked them to argue against their core religious beliefs,” among other concerns such as that “judges in Public Forum Debate would not be able to judge such a politically and religiously charged topic area fairly,” which were ultimately the inspiration for the resolution change.4

I, among others, have been quick to complain of the change, feeling that it is a passive- aggressive complaint on the part of the office, that it is too much of a meta-topic for Public Forum, and that it may force students to argue for their own immaturity. Nevertheless, it is our topic, and I have attempted to produce as great a variety of argument ideas since the release of the topic. I ask that as you read this you maintain your open mind and to also recognize that for me this is an issue of great concern – as a future student of a theological seminary, I understand the positions on both sides from a highly religious perspective.

4 The quoted sections were a part of a release from the office sent to district offices nationwide, including one district chair, who remains anonymous but was kind enough to provide us with this information 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 25 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Before I begin with the topic brief, I want to bring up one argument I saw when I was browsing the Public Forum forums online – the argument went something to the idea of this: 1. By debating the topic, we necessarily confront sensitive religious issues, as religious communities are themselves torn by questions of whether their beliefs are up for debate. 2. The pro contradicts itself, because by arguing that we shouldnʼt confront sensitive religious issues, it creates and indeed participates in a sensitive religious debate. 3. Thus, the pro is negating the resolution, and should lose.5

This is not the way we ought to approach the resolution. For one, there is a difference between confronting and debating sensitive religious issues, as the statement by the NFL office articulates – the question is not whether we cannot debate issues of religion, but issues of religion which single out one group and serve to exclude them from our community. It may be a controversial religious issue for sure, but it wouldnʼt necessarily be a sensitive one. Moreover, questions of performative contradiction are not a part of this debate – indeed, the pro can very much behave contrary to its advocacy and still win. Simply put, if a lobbyist were to make the case before Congress that lobbyists are dangerous for democracy, they would be contradictory in performance, but their point remains either true or false. The pro and neg both need to respect that at the core of this debate is the question of how willing we ought to be as a community to single out religious groups, and the pro doesnʼt lose anything by taking part.

Here, then, I have tried to break the topic brief into two parts – an analysis of Public Forum debate, which is admittedly the un-carded byproduct of my two years of competitive experience, along with my four years since of judging the event. After I have ranted like an old codger about debate, I will address what the impact of targeted religious debates may have on the eventʼs purpose – after all, the resolution does NOT say that religious issues should not be debated in LD or Policy, but in Public Forum.

5 This argument was present in a number of forums 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 26 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Public Forum Debate Public Forum Debate is very much at a crossroads in its attitudes – when I competed just four years ago, the event was almost purely one of “dueling oratories,” in which competitors were best-off attacking the spirit of the opponentʼs argument than the line- by-line. When my partner and I went to NFL nationals in 2007, many of the rounds we won were rounds in which we dropped most of the opposing teamʼs arguments and went straight for the implications of their advocacy. Since then, the event has become more structured, and while jargonʼs use is still much more limited than in Lincoln- Douglas and Cross-Examination, debaters have been trained to think in terms of inherency and value. This is neither a bad nor a good thing, but itʼs key to understanding the direction of the round – this focus on line-by-line was, in my opinion, an influencing factor in the NFLʼs decision to increase the time for the Final Focus from one minute to two – when I competed, we HAD to drop our opponentsʼ arguments; there simply wasnʼt time. Today, the second speaker must surely be efficient, but it is possible to address an opponentʼs arguments as they come.

The purpose of PFD, however, remains guided by the same mantra: to be an event, which everyday people can judge. LD and Policy judges require briefing, and if possible, need to be former competitors in order to fairly judge their events, but the uninvolved parent of a freshman may come to a tournament and judge PF – this was in fact a deliberate move on the part of my district, which wanted to hold students accountable to public sentiment. It was not without its problems – when we debated whether intelligent design ought to be included in public school science curriculums, for instance, a team from our school was dropped because the judge believed the debaters argued their own beliefs, and simply thought that arguing in favor of the resolution is a terrible idea. Our event is highly sensitive, then, to public sentiment concerns, and while we must maintain a great deal of respect for those who judge us, we must also recognize that the public very rarely can be on-face neutral about a topic.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 27 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Given these trends, then, it is my strong opinion that Public Forum Debate ought to be structured such that it is a tool of education for the media-driven world. That means that topics must be simple rather than layered, that they be issues about which “common sense” may be utilized, and topics on which we may still feel included. Whatever side you take in the resolution, it is important that your case be aware of these goals – otherwise, you are debating religious issues but not Public Forum Debate, which is equally important in the round.

Targeted Religious Debate Targeted religious debate is, for me, a term of art which contextually makes it easy for me to summarize a field of resolutions which are hot-button issues for particular religions, making a student who takes a stance on one side feel singled out among others. For instance, I would not consider abortion debates to be a targeted religious debate, because not only are there Christians who hold opinions on all ends of the spectrum, but there are Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus who also have such feelings. To oppose abortion is not to assert oneself as a particular religion. Debates about priests and child molestation, however, may cause Catholics to feel singled out – I donʼt know much about the theology, which drives the priesthood, but I would expect a Catholic student to be sensitive to this issue. Of course, the resolution does not speak simply to targeted debate but to sensitive religious issues – still, as we move through this essay, I believe that of chief concern for the pro and con will be the question of whether or not debating such resolutions creates a hostile environment for any students. There is a movement in the United States of uncertain number claiming that the president, Barack Obama, is secretly a Muslim. My personal stance is something to the effect of “I donʼt think that Obama is a Muslim, but even if he is…so what?” The movement reduces questions of character to a simple question of whether the president even belongs to a particular faith – his healthcare plan is exactly the same whether he is Atheist, Christian, or Muslim. His direction of the Federal Reserve is the same – yet this very simple question is enough for him to find faltering support in the American community. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 28 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Such religious issues are not unique to the United States – in Jakarta; for instance, religion is an ad-hominem, which creates divisions in a mostly Muslim nation. The Jakarta post, for instance, explains that there is a call by some legislators to take religious disputes into private rather than public, given the distribution of a pamphlet claiming that the wife of the Democratic Partyʼs vice-presidential candidate is a Catholic (she is, in fact, a Muslim).6

This is the first concern that we must address when pondering the topic. Aside from the potential for ad-hominems to cause problems for students is the fact that students donʼt want to necessarily take part in some debates. In England, there was a debate this spring regarding judge selection for a case in which a man whose religious beliefs stood against sexuality refused to provide sex therapy advice to a homosexual couple. His refusal is similar to the voice concerned by the NFL release, that students with strong yet sensitive religious views ought not be forced to take part in all discussions – the man in question agreed in principle that the homosexual couple had the right to sex therapy, just not from him.7 Likewise, the potential for a Muslim to be averse to taking an argument that may force them to say that their religion is responsible for 9/11 would very much be a problem when considering PF resolutions. Self-selection bias then eliminates the sensitive voice from the other side of the resolution, because if a religious group opts out of a resolution, what results is not a debate which takes into account all sides, but one devoid of that religionʼs representation.

The above would be problematic when taken to its logical extreme. If we cannot ask students to argue against their own beliefs, why would we opt to have Public Forum at all? Indeed, the very idea behind debate is that by being able to interpret a controversial issue through multiple frames of analysis, we become more educated and enlightened about the spectrum of stances that we may support. Mustnʼt we ask

6 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/29/sensitive-religious-issue-should-be-kept-private- legislator-says.html 7 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/15/lawyers-reject-calls-christian-senstive-judges 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 29 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com religious students to do the same – and argue against their beliefs as we expect anybody to argue against their political beliefs?

To this I say that the issues are not the same. Namely, religion is inherently a matter of faith whereas politics is inherently a matter of value. To simplify even further, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is often a question of what approach to policymaking is of the greatest benefit to society; their differences lie in definitions of benefit and society, of course, but Republicans support tax cuts for the wealthy because in their opinion, the wealthy are the drivers of the American economy, yet Democrats believe differently. We can switch our political persuasions in-round easily enough, because we can go back to the core value of our opponents and adopt a paradigm that both agree upon. Yet religion does not work this way. When I confess my faith in Jesus, Iʼm basically admitting that at the core of my identity I believe in an invisible being who secretly runs the world, that this invisible being who is almighty managed to enter this world in human form and absolve us of sin, whatever that means. This belief is, for me, a matter of faith – while an atheist can understand what this belief is, they cannot genuinely entertain it for a moment, just as I cannot sincerely adopt atheism. This puts us at an impasse on religious issues, because the debate does not come down to fact or even value, but an unshaken core belief that cannot be changed like a hat.

This is where I think the heart of the resolution lies. How much do we ask of our students and judges in Public Forum? How much do they lose (or gain) by debating sensitive religious issues? Personally, I would have qualms to say that God is no more real than the flying spaghetti monster, not because saying as much in a round is a threat to my faith, but because I do not feel that the round can be adequately judged. We invite judge intervention on an issue of faith because at the end of the day, neither Atheist nor Christian nor Muslim nor Jew can objectively persuade an opponent to their belief – thereʼs a common adage among seminarians that “nobody ever converted because they lost the argument.” 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 30 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com For the pro to argue the resolution then is to suggest that on matters of unshaken belief (that is to say, a belief which is not absent with a simple paradigm change), sensitive religious debates are pointless and that instead ought to be left to a genuinely “public” atmosphere, where all people may argue their core beliefs without having to entertain the opposite viewpoint. Such debates may need to be changed from those we see on television to one of greater consensus building but it would certainly make matters easier. Consider the following scenario: the Public Forum debate question asks whether Christian doctors ought to be required to perform abortions when working at state institutions. Suppose also that the pro and con are both arguing the opposite of their own personal beliefs – and that the judge is a nun whose top goal in life is to overturn Roe v. Wade. How fair is this debate? Both sides give arguments from an “incorrect” faith perspective, and the judge will likely only be able to entertain so much of an argument, namely that at the end of the day, your stance on abortion is often driven by your belief of when personhood actually begins. The round is arguably pointless.

On the flip side, debaters could gain to a great extent from this sort of discourse, even when losing. By taking stances on which a judge is understandably sensitive, teams may learn to present their arguments respectfully. By trying to win, they may work to understand opposing beliefs more clearly than building straw-man opposition to their convictions. The round may not be fair, but it is certainly educational, and the value the students gain ten years down the road isnʼt whether a judge could evaluate a ballot but whether we could create a model for civil discourse.

Now we arrive at the question of whether Public Forum is capable of fostering a model for civil discourse. The pro will want, of course, to assert that the event is not structured to permit civility when the greatest sensitivity is needed, while the con will want to mitigate this as best as they can. For the pro, I submit the following question: How fair are we to our opponents in the final focus? This is often the last set of ideas in the judgeʼs mind, and if our event doesnʼt allow us to treat arguments with the respect that they deserve, weʼre in the wrong place. I contend that even with the two-minute final 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 31 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com focus, there is insufficient time to sensitively confront religious issues, because of the need for caveats. Consider the following potential final focuses on the Islamic Cultural Center debate: “Although the religion if Islam is understandably one of peace, we need to approach broad cultural trends with a high degree of sensitivity. To draw a parallel, constructing a church across the street from Auschwitz prison may not tacitly endorse the actions undertaken against Jews, but it would understandably create a discomfort, knowing that the Third Reich used Christian theology to justify their atrocities. We admit that it seems demanding to insist that no Muslim construct a mosque or worship center near Ground Zero, but we ask that there be an understanding that like it or not, there are extremists who have used a perversion of Islam to cause a deep wound in the hearts of many Americans. This isnʼt a ʻVictory Mosque,ʼ we know – but the odds of it being perceived so are enough that we request some understanding on the part of its founders.”

I donʼt personally agree with this speech, but its use of caveat and parallel is the start of a genuine discourse. Of course, I have had the privilege of taking days to write this essay, so in a final focus, instead of the above, we might actually see something closer to this: “Like it or not, the founders of the Ground Zero Mosque have to recognize that America was attacked not by Christians or Jews but by Muslims. If they want us to treat them with any sensitivity we ask that they treat us the same – and take their worship center away from the site of a wound where dedication to Allah brought about the deaths of thousands.”

This is neither productive nor sensitive – the core arguments in both final focuses are the same, but time constraints and a desire for verbal efficiency lend themselves to greater insult. If I gave the latter speech, I wouldnʼt be surprised to encounter hostility after the round, even if I meant well. Throw in that the final focus is asked to answer longer preceding speeches, and there is no room in the event for such rhetoric to work. This is especially dangerous because we predicate Public Forum on the idea that we 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 32 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com want generality! When we generalize sensitive religious issues we fail to treat them with respect or justice. Then again, perhaps this demonstrates how thoroughly there is a need for us to prepare our final foci – after all, the first example speech CAN be read in under a minute, so why should it be used as an example to deny resolutional ground?

The rebuttal to the resolution that I have seen in peopleʼs reactions lies in the assertion that debate must be willing to “offend” – we must question all beliefs if we are to consider the event legitimate. Here, we find similar arguments echoed by Leslie Schwartz, a research analyst for the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. She argues that we must “...create environments that support scholarly inquiry, creative thought, groundbreaking research, and inter-disciplinary programming. Cultivating open dialogue that is inclusive of varying viewpoints is essential to upholding this mission and promoting a pluralistic atmosphere…diversity is simply a fact of our local and global world, but pluralism requires engaging that diversity with study, debate, and dialogue…”8 In other words, sensitive religious issues must be addressed for that very reason, and a structured environment that exposes us to other ideas is the best we could hope for. Moving toward “Politically Correct” resolutions may offend fewer, but if the debate community avoided every offensive topic, weʼd have nothing to debate!

But what does the decision to reject “political correctness” entail? It is dangerous to trounce issues of sensitive religious issues on the basis that we can “move beyond” the issues that many people have to deal with. It is very possible for us to opt for offensiveness not out of self-righteousness but a deep-seated disdain for religious minorities; in fact, such may be the case when dealing with minorities, as while it is unacceptable to make racially bigoted statements or to utter misogynistic mantras, we find ourselves engaged in subtler issues of race and gender. This is a difficult thought

8Schwartz, on the literal level, is speaking about the goals of higher education in particular; however in my reading of the literature the argument translates to the high school forensics community every bit as well. http://www.vcsa.uci.edu/DifficultDialogues/files/pluralism_rept.pdf 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 33 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com around which to wrap our heads, but according to Dr. Jack Russell Weinstein, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of North Dakota, “In order to cultivate a classroom of equals…students must refrain or be prohibited from making [offensive] comments. There is clearly good reason to do so because in this particular context, the right to not be offended trumps the right to free expression. Why? In this context, [offensive] language and behavior prohibits studentsʼ access to education. A sexist classroom is a classroom for men, and men of bad character, at that… The initial step towards curbing hate speech is first and foremost to recognize that the term “politically correct” is a red herring. It is a way of hiding the refusal to respect the feelings of other. It is a backlash against equality and empathy.”9

Take a moment to ponder the weight of that statement – if we want to curb hate speech, we have to recognize that rejection of “political correctness” is itself a gateway toward hate speech. And if we permit offensive statements to take place, we exclude others and hide our inability to be accepting of those religions that are sensitive to certain issues. Think of the last time you had an argument about abortion or gay marriage. Many of them involve anger – but what does that say about our thoughts about othersʼ religious stances?

Argument layouts This month, when constructing argument layouts, Iʼve tried to start with the initial contentions and tracked them back to what I would consider the core values of each side. Keep in mind that the underlying question is what PF debate may and may not permit.

As the pro, I would argue first that the structure of public forum debate is not capable of handling religious matters, particularly because of the lack of an acceptable judging

9 On Hate Speech and the Politically Correct: Comments to Students at the University of North Dakota School of Law; Dr. Jack Russell Weinstein, Associate Professor of Philosophy 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 34 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com principle. In LD, for instance, value debate makes the round clear and in policy, the judge can vote on turns and the flow. PF doesnʼt have this luxury because it is often a debate of the intangible. The debater is called to stir the judgeʼs heart but on sensitive religious issues, the time constraints, presence of the crossfire, and citizen judging make the already contentious logical shortcuts of the event all the worse. You may not be an Islamophobe, but the existence of the Islamic community center debate seems to hint that such people exist.

The above relies on debaters feeling singled out, so defining sensitive religious issues as those which make groups feel targeted, I think, is strategic but admittedly incomplete. To answer the fact that abortion and stem cell research (broad religious issues) are mentioned in the NFL letter to district chairs I would suggest that the NFL office is not all knowing, and that this subset still affirms the resolution. I would also suggest that the NFL office is inconsistent in its release, because intelligent design, a broad religious issue, was debated without a hitch.

The argument also ties into the second argument, and one that I have a few qualms with: that high school debaters simply arenʼt fit to discuss broader religious issues. I have a strong emotional apprehension to this argument because it asks of you to basically argue the case for your own immaturity, which is a self-denial I could not abide. Nevertheless, the argument here is similar to arguments for driversʼ licenses at 18 and other restrictions on youth. Itʼs easy in high school, especially Forensics, to feel that you have the world figured out but of course, life is an ongoing learning process. To ask of high-school students to debate religious issues surrounding faiths that they may not share (or to test faith they have not had the opportunity to fully consider) may be more than the NFL wants to put upon its youth.

The two above contentions have to do with the twin ideas of inclusiveness and fairness. If sensitive religious issues have an exclusive effect, that is that they turn students away from the activity, offend judges, or make it more difficult to debate than it ought to be for 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 35 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com a student, the topic is affirmed. These principles are supported by the idea of debate- as-game, because if debating is supposed to be impersonal, we want to choose topics that are impersonal and not a part of the studentsʼ identities.

The con naturally takes a different approach to the round and follows first the track that excluding religiously sensitive issues is a slippery slope. Anybody who debated or judged affirmative action may remember racial sensitivities being crossed, but most involved agreed that – mature or not – students needed exposure to both sides of the argument. If we cease to debate religious issues on the ground of “sensitivity,” the NFL soon has to avoid other sensitive issues. We arenʼt all 100% religious in our identity, but we exist along a multitude of dimensions from the political to the environmental to the racial to the sexual. If we canʼt offend anybody, weʼd be stuck debating the same five resolutions in high school!

The second argument taken by the con is that we do not grow if we are not challenged. The worst-case scenario is what exactly: a student arguing against their religion for an hour? Faith that canʼt hold up to that is hardly faith at all, and students need to have experience dealing with those challenges. What better way than to put them forth on their own? As Iʼve stated earlier in the essay, students also benefit from learning how to put forth advocacy in an inoffensive way, since they have to learn to speak to a judge without automatically dropping the round.

The two above tie to the idea of debate as an educational event. The slippery slope argument has the underlying educational assumption that “it is good to debate a broader variety of topics, because that variety increases the educational value of its students.” After all, five topics a year would be boring, but worse it wouldnʼt be educational, since the same arguments would get exhausted time and time again. The challenge issue is to suggest that student education takes place in-round and during preparation, and that depriving students of that growth would be contrarian to the purpose of PFD. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 36 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Now we come to the figurative center of the clash between pro and con: is PFD an educational event, or is it a game? If PFD is a game, we ought to avoid offense while if PFD is educational, we ought to embrace it. Arguments in favor of PFD-as-game would suggest that if PFD were genuinely educational, students ought not be penalized for building consensus. Why canʼt I say to you “Youʼre right!” halfway through the round and spend the next hour building off of each-othersʼ thoughts? It would stop the game; we are expected to oppose one-another. Likewise, arguments in PFD-as-educational would answer that by making the point that the entire mantra of the NFL is that education arises when we participate in Forensics; and the program often secures grants by comparing student growth to control groups. After all, there isnʼt as widespread a school-endorsed Call of Duty team. This is because educators doubt the educational value of such a game.

Last tidbits of advice Whatever the case, the best way to beat your opponents this month is not to dance around them but to take the resolution straight up the gut. Having said that, if your opponent tries to sidestep by talking about only one part of the resolutionʼs words or another, feel free to demonstrate how you are more responsive to the question at hand. If your opponent, for instance, keeps on saying that we should debate sensitive religious issues in CX or LD, recognize these arguments for what they are – an unwillingness to address the question of PF. Indeed, it is irrelevant whether CX or LD debate these issues, because PF is a subset of high school debate. If high school debaters shouldnʼt cover sensitive issues, neither should they encounter them in PF, but the reverse is not true.

Try to avoid the use of examples here – because, as I have said repeatedly here, religious matters are highly personal, varied, and rely on a large set of assumptions, what is a perfect example for you isnʼt for another. You usually canʼt be one hundred percent certain what your opponents and judge believe when it comes to example issues, so dealing in abstraction allows everybody to fill in their own examples. This is 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 37 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com really great for you, because if you give a contention in abstraction while maintaining simplicity, your judge may picture one thing while your opponent considers another – that makes their rebuttal less responsive to the perceived argument. By avoiding examples for the most part, you save yourself rebuttal time for what your opponents throw at you and you manage to give your opponents less to cling onto.

Finally, if you absolutely must use an example, use them purely from the perspective of the Islamic Cultural Center resolution, but be sparing. I honestly donʼt know what offends or doesnʼt offend a student of the Islamic faith except for the worst offenses such as handling pork. Donʼt jump to assumptions on the religious front but you may demonstrate the potential for saying politically incorrect and abusive statements were the resolution to pass – or, how debating the resolution is key to addressing those abuses and offenses from taking hold in our society. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 38 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SARAH SPIKER-RAINEY

In my first Public Forum Debate competition, Todd and I found ourselves debating the topic of intelligent design in science curriculums. It was a sensitive issue in the literature base that required debaters to tread lightly and look to logical rationale to justify claims made in round and avoid religious stereotypes. Students tackled the topic head-on, some better than others. Fast forward a few years and weʼre faced with yet another religiously-charged resolution concerning the building of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Instead of allowing students to rationalize through their religious misgivings, the topic has been replaced with a meta-topic instead: Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues. The new resolution provides debaters with a chance to debate the merits of debating sensitive issues without actually debating one. The question then becomes: 1. On balance, are high school students capable of rationally handling sensitive topics? 2. Is there educational value to focusing students on sensitive issues? Beginning with an examination of the importance of religion, we will examine both sides of the resolution.

When it comes to knowing religion basics, American students fail miserably. Sixty percent cannot name five of the Ten Commandments and of students surveyed, just 36% know Ramadan is the Islamic holy month.10 Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, finds Americanʼs ignorance of world religions a danger to democracy.11 Running away from religiously charged debates like intelligent design harms our own rational capacities in the long term. Religious discussion, on the other hand, empowers citizenship, according to Prothero. He continues:

10Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today, March 7, 2007, “Americans get an 'F' in religion,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm 11 Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA Today, March 7, 2007, “Americans get an 'F' in religion,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-03-07-teaching-religion-cover_N.htm 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 39 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com “If you want to be involved, you need to know what they're saying. We're doomed if we don't understand what motivates the beliefs and behaviors of the rest of the world. We can't outsource this to demagogues, pundits and preachers with a political agenda... More and more of our national and international questions are religiously inflected… If you think Sunni and Shia are the same because they're both Muslim, and you've been told Islam is about peace, you won't understand what's happening in Iraq. If you get into an argument about gay rights or capital punishment and someone claims to quote the Bible or the Quran, do you know it's so?"

USA Today points out that religion has become an afterthought in the education climate, harming studentʼs ability to understand political structures. When students fail to be educated on both sides of the issue, unfair stereotypes emerge. For example, Target of Opportunity claims “Muslims advance a definition that Islam is a shinning [sic] beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance, and racism.”12 Encouraging students to seek out rational explanations for both sides of religious issues can lead to more moderate, balanced viewpoints. Even if educational value can be found in analyzing sensitive issues, we must first determine if high school students are even capable of properly surveying the issue.

Jean Piagetʼs delineation of developmental stages provides a progressive timeline for individual maturity. Infants start off in the sensorimotor stage, progress to the pre- operational stage, and then can advance on to the concrete operational and formal operation stages. The primary difference between the final two stages lies in the individualʼs ability to think rationally about concrete and abstract concepts, respectively. Despite the seemingly simple progression, just 35% of high school graduates obtain formal operations.13 Few adults reach that level as well. Since religion is a highly

12“Islam-A Religion Based on Terrorism,” Target of Opportunity, http://www.targetofopportunity.com/islam.htm 13 William Huitt, et al, “Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development,” 2003, http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 40 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com abstract and theoretical concept, it appears that a majority of adults-let alone high school students-could properly approach religious issues with respect; the majority simply isnʼt mature enough for these discussions. Maturity is needed for sensitive topics. High school students often lack maturity to talk about sensitive topics in front of others.14 The solution seems simple: if high school students lack the maturity necessary to adequately approach religious issues with respect, then PFD should not force them to confront them.

Forcing discussion over highly charged religious issues, may make students uneasy and uncomfortable which, in turn, can discourage them from participating in the event. Religion is an extremely private issue. The Jakarta Post featured an article regarding religious issues in the public domain in an election. Many of the arguments make sense when applied to Public Forum Debate. Ferry Mursyidan Baldan, a legislator from Golkar Party, argues that "If any team decides to go into the public domain with religious issues, we will face broad emotional impacts."15 When religious issues enter a Public Forum Debate round, the debate turns emotional and spiritual instead of logical and well reasoned. Public Forum is essential a political debate on a much smaller level. Since the principles of politics and religion are quite different, issues of religion should remain separate from the political realm. According to encyclopedia politics is defined as "is the process by which groups of people make decisions". It further describes politics as the institution "Consists [sic] of social relations involving authority or power and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy". Whereas religion is defined as "a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural

14Mark Jackett, English Journal, “Something to "Speak" about: Addressing Sensitive Issues through Literature,” March 2007, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ77 6512&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ776512 15“Sensitive religious issue should be kept private, legislator says,” The Jakarta Post, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/06/29/sensitive-religious-issue-should-be-kept-private- legislator-says.html 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 41 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com and moral claims about reality, the cosmos and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual or religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experiences".16

At their most basic level, religion and politics are divergent in their views. The article concludes that religious groups “could participate in the welfare of the country by giving good suggestions to the government without being actively involved in the politics.”17 Similarly, while a Public Forum Debate Round may use religion to inform or guide arguments, it should not be the focal point of the resolution. Otherwise, students feel personally attacked by their opponents on a spiritual level and judges are forced to vote on religious thought instead of logic.

Mixing the political and the religious within a debate round could lead to spiritual confusion for the high school students. Pope Benedict XVI once urged Jesuits to avoid "sowing confusion" on sensitive issues regarding matters of the Church and religious doctrine.18 Public Forum Debate provides an ideal setup for confusion to take place. The structure of the event simply does not allow adequate time to engage in religious debates. Four minutes speeches force students to gloss over religious issues instead of reaching the core of religious differences. Given the little amount of time available, debaters cannot adequately address preconceived notions the opponents or judge may have. Crossfires can quickly devolve into personal assaults on religious bases. Occasionally on the Intelligent Design topic, crossfires devolved into angry ad hom attacks on one anotherʼs religion. The sensitive topic brought out strong emotional feelings that trumped logical discussion of public policy. As a result, students may

16 Associated Content, “Religion and Politics Have Their Own Path and Should Not Be Mixed,” October 20, 2008, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1114812/religion_and_politics_have_their_own.html?cat=9 17 Associated Content, “Religion and Politics Have Their Own Path and Should Not Be Mixed,” October 20, 2008 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1114812/religion_and_politics_have_their_own.html?cat=9 18 Inquirer via Agence France-Presse, “Pope to Jesuits: avoid 'confusion' on sensitive issues” http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080222-120455/Pope-to-Jesuits-avoid-confusion-on- sensitive-issues 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 42 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com become confused religiously inside and outside of rounds, especially when they are forced to debate both sides of the resolution.

With regard to the question of student maturity, it is undeniable that high school students have ways to improve – but rather than focus on areas where students lack, debaters ought to recognize the maturity students certainly possess. Even in the context of controversial issues which need to be delicately handled because of their potential to offend, high school study is nevertheless encouraged. An article from the Maine School Administrative District 11 articulates this when it notes that “The study should be emphasized in the high school, when most students are mature enough to study the significant controversial issues facing our society.”19 Mistakes are certain to come forth but Public Forum Debate has already had to deal with a body of debaters who are learning the nuance of sensitive issues, and society hasnʼt collapsed under this burden. High School is the opportune time to introduce new ideas to individuals. Their maturity cannot develop further if they are not given the opportunity to display their growth over controversial subjects. Emphasis can and should be placed on “the method of forming an opinion as much as on the opinion formed.”20

Public Forum Debate must also be protected as an outlet to disempower media outlets in their efforts to steer public discourse. Even apart from the eventʼs notions of education and gaming, the truth is that it is a public debate; the discourse that takes place is invaluable. Lawrence Lessig of Wired Magazine wrote in August of 2004 that “As media becomes more concentrated, competition to curry favor with politicians only increases…Concentration tied to copyright thus gives networks both the motive and the means to protect favored guests.”21 With media increasingly centralized, high school debate simply cannot afford to lose out on an outlet of empowerment. For instance, when the Islamic center in New York City is debated, networks tend to take a particular

19 “IMB-Teaching About Controversial/Sensitive Issues,” May 3, 2007, http://www.msad11.org/node/291 20 “IMB-Teaching About Controversial/Sensitive Issues,” May 3, 2007, http://www.msad11.org/node/291 21 “Copyrighting the President,” Wired Magazine, August 2004 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 43 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com stance and public politicians group toward their respective “friendlies” – the public interest is not served if we are not willing to break down that media outlet by holding a two-sided debate in our own classrooms. If we let the debate be stifled instead we are more likely to have our opinions spoon-fed to us. Public Forum debate provides students with a safe, structured environment to explore sensitive religious subjects and investigate media claims, an opportunity that is rarely given outside the classroom.

Another example of this is how some fundamental issues are discussed in the wake of the September 11 attacks: President Bush also declared that younger Americans should be taught to respond to the September 11 crisis, but his vision of how this should be done was very narrow. In announcing an effort to strengthen citizenship education in the wake of the attacks, Bush said the programʼs purpose was to teach that ʻAmerica is a force for good in the world, bringing hope and freedom to other people.ʼ The goal was to prescribe, not to explore, what American citizenship is and means. And those who challenge their students to ask the hard questions are encountering difficulties. One Florida teacher who asked his class to discuss Benjamin Franklinʼs statement ʻThey that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safetyʼ was disciplined by the schoolʼs principal for his departure from the required curriculum. Answers are safe: questions are not.22

Taking a religiously sensitive topic and putting it “out of bounds” isnʼt doing a service to the issue itself because that opens the matter to more centralized control. Indeed, the best way to serve our disenfranchised populations must be to engage in the public sphere as often as possible lest the debate be set by special interests and big government. Public Forum allows students to freely question and answer relevant social concerns. Religious issues should be allowed as well. If the debate community wants to

22 “Let’s Blame the Readers,” Colombia Journalism Review, Issue 1. January/February 2005 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 44 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com pride itself in its intellectual rigor and logical faculties, arbitrarily limiting certain topics as ʻtabooʼ does more harm than good: it eliminates debate, prevents discussion on important societal issues, and tacitly implies that religious issues have no place in public discourse. This is not an issue of separation of church and state. If certain avenues of public discourse are banned and restricted, we limit the academic growth of high school students. Religion would become the unspoken motivator for many policies, but students would not be encouraged to pursue the deeper religious reasons for policy action.

So when we openly discuss religious issues, what happens? Rather than create intolerance, debate in its truest sense brings peaceful resolution where previously there was none. We are used to using the United States as a metric for discussion-based notions, but when dealing with religious conflict between Azerbeijan and Armenia, religion has been a far more sensitive issue yet discussion about those issues is every bit as essential to conflict resolution as it has been for great disagreements in the past. Hovhannes Hovhannisyan writes for the Journal of Conflict Transformation on the matter that, [W]e would like to discuss the religious factor as a tool for peaceful resolution making a great emphasize [sic] on the moral aspects of religion because notwithstanding of religious belief or belongings the moral values are connected with human values and they are universal for all mankind.23

This religious discourse comes from education, and is the key to answering back the very religious intolerance which the resolution change arguably sought to avoid. My avoiding religious discussion, one exacerbates the conflict. Ali S. Asani, Harvard professor of the practice of Indo-Muslim languages and culture, argues that pluralism through education and dialogue must take place, saying that:

23 “Religious Component as a Tool for Reconciliation of Armenian and Azerbaijani Populations,” Journal of Conflict Transformation, May 15, 2010, http://caucasusedition.net/analysis/religious-component-as-a-tool-for- reconciliation-of-armenian-and-azerbaijani-populations/ 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 45 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com There has to be an increased awareness of the racist stereotyping of Islam and Muslims in America…It is manufactured and sustained by the mainstream media in the US. This creates a public perception of Islam as a violent, backward, intolerant and despotic theology. It promotes the racist image of Muslims as fanatics, terrorists, extremists and suspects. There needs to be cognizance of how this dehumanization of Muslims enables the ongoing targeting of their civil rights and liberties in the US…American Muslims feel that they are prejudged to be supporters of terrorism and not loyal to the US. ..I think itʼs very important because itʼs Muslims who suffer most, because they are so demonized for political reason…People have to make a real effort not just to invite them to come in to chat, but a real effort to say ʻwe understand that you have been demonized…The best way to combat ignorance about Islam and xenophobia against Muslims is to confront it, and to educate and inform Americans…24

Students should be encouraged within Public Forum to debate religious merits. Amnesty International argues that “Open debate and respect for human rights is the only framework within which security and development can be sustained.”25 Actively breaking down stereotypes can lead students to a better appreciation for religious beliefs even if they do not agree with them, removing stereotypes commonly associated with them. By better analyzing beliefs and who hold certain beliefs, we can stop negative generalizations from pervading our society. If Public Forum does confront these issues, where else are students going to have the opportunity to critically analyze and support religious beliefs?

Public Forum offers debaters a safe real-world testing ground. Separating the religion from other aspects of society is difficult. Religions and their formal representatives often

24 “Overcoming Muslim stereotypes,” Wicked Local: Arlington, January 10, 2008 25 Amnesty International, no date given, http://www.amnesty.org/en/freedom-of-expression 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 46 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com become the essential bearers of moral values.26 Freedom Forum explains the importance: Because religion plays a significant role in history and society, study about religion is essential to understanding both the nation and the world. Omission of facts about religion can give students the false impression that the religious life of humankind is insignificant or unimportant. Failure to understand even the basic symbols, practices and concepts of the various religions makes much of history, literature, art and contemporary life unintelligible. Study about religion is also important if students are to value religious liberty, the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, knowledge of the roles of religion in the past and present promotes cross-cultural understanding essential to democracy and world peace.27

In Abington v. Schempp, Associate Justice Tom Clark supported this notion of religion as a critical part of educational institutions. Even if religion cannot be taught in a method to convert students, it can be used within a historical context. Clark writes: [I]t might well be said that oneʼs education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. 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 affected consistently with the First Amendment.28

26 “Religious Component as a Tool for Reconciliation of Armenian and Azerbaijani Populations,” Journal of Conflict Transformation, May 15, 2010, http://caucasusedition.net/analysis/religious-component-as-a-tool-for- reconciliation-of-armenian-and-azerbaijani-populations/ 27 “Religion in the Public School Curriculum” February 25, 2002, http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/findingcommonground/B07.inPublicSchool.pdf 28 As cited in “Religion in the Public School Curriculum” February 25, 2002, http://www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/findingcommonground/B07.inPublicSchool.pdf

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 47 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Public Forum Debate offers students the opportunity to comparatively study religious issues and relate it to the status of civilization. Whether the religion in question is Christian, Muslim, Daoist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or otherwise, a critical examination can promote global thinking and even strengthen oneʼs own religious convictions. Debating and supporting a religiously unsavory ideology should not be uncommon. After all, a position that a debater chooses to run does not mean that that position is the position s/he believes in. If all debaters believed in what they run, I suppose we have a large population of high school students that believe nuclear war truly is imminent. Public Forum is simply a testing ground where students can gauge the strength and validity of arguments they will hear in the real world later on.

Debate may not seem to be the effort to say that “we understand,” but the beauty of Public Forum is that for every person arguing in offense to the religion, there is somebody in round defending it. At the end of the day, a dialogue which allows for equal representation including a chance to rebut religious offense is a dialogue for progress, and we cannot allow our community to lose out on an opportunity of such great value. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 48 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TOPIC ANALYSIS BY CHRISTIAN TARSNEY

So…I guess this is really, truly the resolution. At least, pending a second wave of outrage that leads the NFL to change the topic to “Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate coaches should take a long walk off a short pier,” I think itʼs safe to assume that this is the resolution that will actually be debated during the month of November. The reaction from the first coaches I ran into after the topic change had been announced via email was not even “This has to be a joke,” but “Given that this is a joke, how did it happen and who did it?” I donʼt think Iʼm exaggerating when I say that it was several hours before anyone even considered the possibility that it was serious. But the weight of evidence does now suggest that this is, in fact, the real topic.

Lest I give you the wrong impression, let me hasten to add that I couldnʼt be happier about that. Of course, I was one of the very few people who liked the old topic (and one of the very, very few who defended it vocally). But this resolution, I think, offers the potential for a lot of debates very similar to the ones that I thought would have been interesting on the old resolution, without nearly as much of the (admittedly significant) potential for debaters causing each other personal offense, so itʼs probably an improvement.

Since there are quite a few topic analysis essays in these briefs, and since the literature base on this topic functions very differently from most (the only literature that speaks directly to the precise question of the resolution probably comes from comment threads relating to the old resolution), Iʼm going to approach this analysis quite a bit differently than I normally would, in the hope of avoiding redundancy. In particular, Iʼm not going to try for an exhaustive presentation of all or even very many of the arguments on each side. Instead, Iʼm going to spend a good deal of time exploring a few aspects of the 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 49 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com topic that I find to be of particular interest, and try in the process to draw your attention to some potential avenues for related research.

The Backstory For those of you whoʼve been vacationing on Neptune for the past few weeks, itʼs worth talking briefly about how this topic came to be. As I assume most of you know, the original November Pubic Forum resolution was “Resolved: An Islamic cultural center should be built near Ground Zero.” For somewhat understandable reasons, this provoked a negative reaction among a lot of coaches: First, it seemed to be feeding a made-up, politically motivated controversy; second, in consequence thereof, there didnʼt seem to be a great deal of serious academic literature, especially serious academic neg literature; third, the resolution brought negative attention to debate from school and district administrators, who would be more likely to look askance at claims about the educational value of the activity as a result; and fourth, the topic was considered likely to alienate many Muslim students and parents since negative teams would be forced to either argue “Islam bad,” or at minimum argue for an association between Islam per se and terrorism (which of course would not be the same thing as “Islam bad”—every major religion is, as a matter of simple fact, associated with various unpalatable practices from its past and present, but these are not by themselves sufficient to show the falsity or net undesirability of those religions; it would nonetheless, obviously, be something that many Muslims would have a hard time arguing). As a result, it seemed likely that some Muslim students might be unwilling or unable to debate the topic, and might even stop debating entirely as a result. There were other objections made to the topic as well, but I think these four were the core reasons for its being seen as problematic.

It took only one day of sustained backlash from coaches for the topic to be changed to what it now is—the first topic was announced on Friday morning, the second on Saturday. The indication, then, which was explicitly confirmed by the email announcing the change, was that the negative feedback on the first resolution was pretty 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 50 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com overwhelming. At the same time, it seems clear from the new topic that the Powers that Be within the NFL remain unconvinced by the objections to the original resolution.

Why does all that matter? Well, it may not, but itʼs interesting to ask whether the new resolution should be viewed as a continuation of the meta-debate about the old one— i.e. whether what we are supposed to be debating is the propriety of the original topic, and others like it. Clearly, the NFL thinks that it should and that we are. A number of coaches, on the other hand, reacted negatively to the topic change because they saw it misunderstanding and mischaracterizing their objections to the old topic—religious controversy per se, they claimed, was never the point at issue and was not what they were objecting to. The problem with the old topic was that it engaged a fabricated religious controversy without real significance or genuine academic merit.

Thereʼs certainly some truth to this, but itʼs worth noting that the mere frivolity of the topic did not seem to be what actually provoked its detractors—the NBA dress code topic of years past was similarly frivolous (although of course it invoked larger, non- frivolous issues—but so, of course, does the debate over Park51), but did not provoke anything like the same magnitude of backlash. The strength of the backlash stemmed, more than anything else, from the potential for offense to peopleʼs religious views—and that seems like something thatʼs inherent, or very nearly inherent, to any debate over “sensitive religious issues.” Indeed, it seems like the most reasonable interpretation of the word “sensitive” is something like “carrying the potential for causing offense.” Thus, the arguments that were made on the original topic about the potential impact of the topic on participation among Muslim students may be, in more general form, affirmative ground on this topic. Debating sensitive religious issues may be well and good, but unless it is somehow uniquely better than any of the myriad other topics we could be debating, then the interests of promoting participation and avoiding student discomfort ought to come first. Better to let more students benefit from debate than to exclude some in the name of a dogmatic insistence of free and unconstrained exploration of every topic imaginable. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 51 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

What counts as a “sensitive religious issue”? My own background is in LD debate, and I still have a very clear memory of debating the TOC topic my senior year, which was “Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state.” This is the about closest I can recall a debate topic coming in recent years to addressing religious issues at all, let alone sensitive ones. The only other candidate for that distinction would be the compulsory immunization topic from last season (“Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.”), which did quite directly touch on what a small minority of people view as a sensitive religious issue; that potential sensitivity, however, never really manifested itself (at least that I was aware of), since the level of participation in debate among the “God hates medicine” crowd is fairly low. Finally, there is an LD topic on the docket for this coming year that reads “Resolved: Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process,” which seems to fall into about the same ballpark in terms of potential for religious offense.

I find it hard to imagine a convincing argument that these sorts of topics ought to be taboo—in terms of the balance of costs with pedagogical (and socio-cultural) benefits, it seems clear that such issues are worthwhile for high school students to engage. So we should take it as a desideratum of any good interpretation of “sensitive religious issues” that it should exclude issues of this sort.

One plausible way of drawing such a line is on the basis of their focus not on religion as such, but the role of religion and religious reasoning in politics, and the degree to which the political process should be obligated to respect, accommodate or defer to religious beliefs. So we might say that these sorts of topics are acceptable, but that topics which deal with purely religious matters are not—in other words, that we should be able to debate anything that is ultimately a political issue, whether sensitive (religiously or otherwise) or not, but should not be able to debate religion as such, independent from its interaction with politics. There could be good, principled reasons for drawing this 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 52 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com line—the interaction between personal beliefs and public policy is something that we are necessarily forced to confront in actual public dialogue, outside the confines of high school debate, in order to make public policy, whereas the more personal aspects of religious belief are things about which we can safely live and let live.

Of course, by this standard, the Park51 topic would not have qualified as a “religious issue,” which is surely contrary to framersʼ intent, and also reasonable intuition—even those who are accusing the NFL of mischaracterizing the original issue with that topic are not claiming that the first topic did not confront a sensitive religious issue, but merely that it was primarily objectionable for other reasons. Itʼs also hard to imagine what debate resolution (let alone Public Forum debate resolution) would confront religious issues in total isolation from any connection to politics; much as Iʼd love to see a resolution about, say, the metaphysics of transubstantiation, Iʼm pretty sure itʼs not going to happen.

So perhaps the line to be drawn has instead to do with degree of sensitivity—the issues posed by the aforementioned LD resolutions either do not single out or call into question the practices of any particular group (separation of church and state, secular vs. religious ethics), or else single out a group so marginal not that sheer quantity of offense that might be caused is not especially great (immunization). It is odd to say, though, that a topic ceases to be sensitive simply by virtue of pushing on the doctrines of all religions equally—itʼs hard to deny, for instance, debating the existence of God would count as “confronting a sensitive religious issue.” Similarly, it seems odd to say that what counts as a sensitive religious issue is strongly dependent on the size of the religion—there are a fairly significant number of people (in absolute terms) opposed to vaccination on religious grounds, certainly enough to merit consideration within the spectrum of religious doctrine, but there are also enough such groups that it would be hard to suggest that we could never debate any topic that might challenge any of their views.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 53 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com I think the answer, ultimately, is that we know religious sensitivity when we see it— people are offended by some things and not by others for reasons often far from rational, and the question of the resolution is whether we ought to avoid causing such offense, when and where it has the potential to occur. It is hard to give a clear explanation of why, for instance, the argument that nearly all religions engender sectarian hatred and violence (common on the separation-of-church-and-state topic) offends almost no one, whereas the argument that Islam in particular engenders a particular form of violence (terrorism) is viewed by many people as egregiously offensive, but there you have it. Sensitive religious issues are simply whatever religious issues enough people happen to be sensitive about at a given point in time.

What is it with religion? So how come so many people are so sensitive about so many religious issues? This question is really the crux of the best negative ground on the topic, so Iʼm going to spend a while giving you my two cents on it, and in the process point you towards a few of the authors who have recently made much more extended arguments for similar claims.

The first odd thing to notice about the sociology of religious beliefs, which helps explain why we would even think twice about debating an issue out of concern for its “religious sensitivity,” is what those authors have referred to as the “free pass” afforded to religious beliefs, in both public and private, which seems to exempt them under most circumstances from both the criticism, and from nearly all the standards of credibility which we apply to more or less any other category of belief29. If someone says, for instance, that we should pursue a fuel swap policy with Iran, it would be perfectly normal to ask “Why?” and expect a reasonable answer. But if someone expresses the belief that a supernatural being created the universe and everything in it, is watching us right this instant, and plans to assign our souls to either eternal happiness or eternal torment

29 On this point see, for instance, Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (W. W. Norton, 2005). 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 54 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com come the end of time, that same question would seem, to most people, clearly out of place, or even impolite. And even apart from what we might utter out loud, most of us do not judge as absurd religious beliefs which, but for their religiosity (and perhaps their familiarity), would certainly provoke such a judgment—take any story you like from the mythology of the Abrahamic religions, replace “God” with “aliens,” and consider the resultant affect on its prima facie aura of believability.

There are, I think, at least two reasons for this phenomenon. The first is the widely perceived connection between religious beliefs and “identity,” in the quasi-coherent sense in which the term is used by the social sciences. Itʼs of course unremarkable that people should view their religious beliefs as one of the more important things about them—religious belief has, or at least in principle ought to have, an enormous impact on how one leads oneʼs life, both in terms of moral conduct and in terms of more mundane things like where you go and whom you associate with on weekends. But the view of religious belief as a feature of identity is an enormous step beyond this. A personʼs job, for instance, their level of education, or their place of residence all have a similar if not greater impact on the particulars of their life, but they are not seen as being “a part of who you are” to the point where changing jobs, getting another degree, or moving to a different town would make you literally a different person.

Thereʼs an interesting philosophical point here, involving the probable confusion between two very distinct senses of the word “identity.” The sense in which mathematicians and analytic philosophers use the term, as denoting either the simple one-to-one matching relation between a thing and itself, perhaps at different times (numerical identity), or an exact, perfect match of observable properties (qualitative identity), has a tendency to subtly creep in to the entirely different notion of “identity” as the set of “central characteristics of oneself as a person,” which might include such things as race, gender, nationality and, as we are discussing, religion. Of course, it is possible to hold that identity in the social-science sense really does match up with numerical identity—that, for instance, someone who changes gender or nationality or 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 55 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com whatever does not actually survive the change, and that the person who emerges from the change is as much as different human being as if we had killed the original person and replaced them with their near-identical doppelganger from another dimension. This claim, however, seems pretty implausible, especially when one thinks carefully about the distinct senses of being “not the same person,” and avoids being drawn into conflating them.

A couple of familiar examples, though, illustrate that this sort of confusion is rife when it comes to religious belief. One, which a number of recent critics of religion (most notably Richard Dawkins30) have lambasted, is the habit of seeing religious beliefs as something that one is born with, and thinking of a child born to a Christian family as a “Christian child,” a child born to a Muslim family as a “Muslim child,” and so on, well before they reach the age where they could even begin to explicitly conceptualize, let alone intelligently evaluate the beliefs that have been foisted on them. In Christianity, at least, this way of thinking is sanctified by formal rituals like baptism and chrismation, which in most branches of the church occur during infancy31. Dawkins has polemically dubbed such practices a form of child abuse, and while he may be guilty of some hyperbole, it is easy to see the argument that even otherwise confident and rational adults are much willing to consider fundamentally changing or discarding their religious beliefs in the face of argument, and thus much more sensitive to the sorts of criticisms which might, if sustained, compel such a change, when they see those beliefs as having been a part of them since birth, rather than as something that they chose to adopt at a certain age as a result of ordinary persuasion.

Another example, which has always struck me as odd, is the inclusion of religious belief in the same category as race, gender, national origin and sexual orientation in things

30 See, for instance, an article from the Hindustan Times discussing Dawkins’ views at http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fairy-tales-religious-myths-not-good-for-kids/Article1-347129.aspx. 31 It’s worth noting, though, that many of the arguments put forward by Dawkins et al merely echo the arguments first advanced in the Reformation era by groups like the Anabaptists which were critical of the practice of infant baptism. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 56 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com like, for instance, non-discrimination laws and policies. The rationale for barring discrimination of the basis of the latter set of traits is presumably that they are unchosen and unchangeable, and thus not reflective of things like intelligence or innate ability, and not the sort of thing to which it would be fair to attach advantages or disadvantages. Chosen characteristics, including beliefs, however, are things for which we generally believe that people can fairly be held accountable—if in the course of a job interview I mention that I believe in the Loch Ness monster, it would not seem particularly horrific to most people that that might prejudice my chances of landing the job. What sets religious beliefs apart in this context, I think, is the tacit idea that they arenʼt really chosen—that they are something, like gender, which we are born with and that most of us will die with. Of course, this idea is not purely imaginary—the best predictor of anyoneʼs religious beliefs (as, even more unfortunately, of their political beliefs) is the belief system of their parents. But we legitimize this state of affairs far more in the case of religion than in the case of politics, and think that people cannot reasonably be blamed for believing, however nonsensically and with whatever lack of knowledge and articulate justification, the same things that their parents believed about the supernatural. This also appears to be indicative to the view of religious beliefs as a component of identity.

The second reason why religious belief is afforded the deference it typically is stems from the ecumenical movement within Christianity, and the broad impact it has had on attitudes towards religion, especially in North America. Ecumenism originally aimed at a limited reconciliation of, and mutual acceptance between, the various branches of Christianity, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that its influence—in suggesting that competing religious dogmas should be tolerated not merely in the legal or political sense, but from a doctrinal, intellectual or epistemic standpoint as well—represented a great step in many peopleʼs minds towards things like the modern “inter-faith” movement and the idea that “there are many paths to God.”

Many observers, both religious and non-religious, have argued that a critical distinction has been obscured in liberal theology between on the one hand the claim that “Our 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 57 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com agreements outweigh our disagreements,” (a much more reasonable assertion when applied to divergent sects of Christianity than when applied to, say, Islam and Hinduism) and on the other hand the polite refusal to acknowledge the existence of disagreement via assertions like “Our faiths represent equally valid ways of understanding the divine.” But the efficacy of this sort of talk in glossing what might otherwise be the source of the sorts of conflicts that religion has historically engendered has made it quite popular, and has had the effect of making religious controversy, and the attempt to argue for the truth of one religious doctrine over the truth of another, appear uncouth and impolite.

It could also be argued that there is another element present here: Prior to the 20th century, most of the Western world was fairly homogeneous, religiously speaking, and limits on the exchange of ideas across distance impeded effective debate between the proponents of various religions. Thus, those living in the Christian world were exposed to the arguments and evidence for Christianity (along with, perhaps even more importantly, a sense of its normality), while those in the Muslim world had the same experience of Islam, and even relatively educated people on either side could happily convince themselves of the superiority of their own epistemic position in holding their own beliefs. More recently, as the essential similarity between the sorts of epistemic warrant enjoyed by the various major religions (and especially the Abrahamic religions) has come to be appreciated, it has become increasingly difficult for educated Christians to assert that a decisive balance of evidence favors Christianity over Islam, or for educated Muslims to assert the reverse.

The conclusion which ought to be drawn, of course, is that if there are (let us say arbitrarily) five major religions in the world each with equivalent epistemic warrant, and each clearly making claims that contradict those of the other four, then no observer can be warranted in believing any of them in particular to be true with a probability higher than (at most) .2; but this of course is an implication that most religious believers would like very much to resist, and as a result the option of glossing or just ignoring what, to the un-motivated reasoner, are evident contradictions (for instance, Trinitarian theology 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 58 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com versus Jewish or Muslim monotheism), and effectively leaving to the side all questions of truth or falsity, comes to seem very attractive.

It has been suggested as well that the appeal of this approach comes not just from the difficulties of inter-religious competition, but also from the mutual interest of all religions in defending religion as such from the hordes of the unbelievers. Since (as it appears to many atheists) most arguments that could be made by adherents of Religion A against Religion B could quite easily give rise to closely analogous arguments against Religion A, intelligent adherents of most major religions have all tacitly come to the agreement that “Weʼre all living in glass houses, so letʼs none of us throw stones or our tenants might be tempted to go shopping for sturdier epistemic architecture elsewhere.”

All of the above considerations, if correct, provide excellent reasons why debate in general ought to address sensitive religious issues, or at least why religious sensitivity per se should not be a barrier to addressing an otherwise worthwhile topic. Itʼs not clear that thereʼs any legitimate reason why people should be nearly as sensitive as they are about challenges to their religious beliefs or disrespect towards their religious faction. Debaters are required on a monthly basis to put up with arguments implying that their political beliefs (be they liberal or conservative of whatever flavor) are responsible for the deaths of millions of people and will shortly bring about the end up the human species; itʼs hard to give a good rationale for treating religion any different other than by a bare appeal to the fact of peopleʼs sensitivities.

The intuitive affirmative response to this argument, of course, is why there should be any harm in respecting peopleʼs sensitivities for their own sake, rational or irrational. No doubt there is a story to be told about the value of free inquiry and truth-seeking for their own sakes, and the importance of slaughtering any sacred cows encountered in the process. But one can accept such a story while maintaining that this process should not be foisted on people who are not themselves eager to engage in it, and especially not on high school students, who perhaps do not always have the same self-assurance and 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 59 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com willingness to critically evaluate their own beliefs that we might reasonably expect of adults, and even more importantly may not be fully at liberty to express challenges to the beliefs of their parents.

There are two lines that negatives can take here, I think. One is a sort of free-speech argument, that there are long-term harms to allowing the sensibilities of any group of believers (religious or otherwise) to provide the basis for an institutional gag on certain kinds of discussions. Of course, the NFL is not an organ of the government, and even if it were, the choice of resolution does not actually limit what debaters can discuss in round, let alone out of round. But thereʼs an argument to be made both that (a) the cultural phenomenon of deference to exaggerated and pampered sensitivities is something that ought to be resisted—that even if we could get by without discussing sensitive religious issues in debate, we cannot get by without discussing them at all, and every sphere of public life faces similar pressures towards gagging such discussions— and that (b) there is a risk of spillover from the cultural to the political, i.e. of deference to religious sensitivities becoming a matter of law if we are too tolerant of it as a matter of culture. If youʼre not convinced that this latter risk is genuine, spend a little time reading up the recent work of the Canadian “Human Rights Commissions,” or better yet, look up the videos posted by the conservative publisher Ezra Levant, who was required to appear in front of the Alberta commission after a complaint was filed against one of his publications for re-printing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. If he canʼt get you to agree with his description of the Commissioners as “fascist thugs,” then you may need to reconsider your conception of fascist thuggery. The risk of a similar spillover occurring in the United States may not be imminent, but itʼs worth considering and not an unreasonable negative argument.

The other way negatives can explain the proactive importance of challenging taboos on religious criticism is by, well, criticizing religion. It may be hard to sell the middle-aged mother in the back of the room on “Religion is childish make-believe—itʼs time for humanity to grow up,” but in front of any judge whom you know to be open-minded (or 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 60 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com irreligious) enough, the argument is certainly there to be made. The spate of recent “militant atheist” authors, including Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, have begun to popularize arguments against theism which have been well-accepted in academia (or at least the physical sciences) for a long time, and have simultaneously published a wealth of cardable literature arguing that religious beliefs are not merely false but pernicious, and should be exorcised sooner rather than later in the general interests of humanity and the future of civilization32. What these authors often fail to present are the more conceptually rigorous philosophical arguments against theism (the arguments they present tend to focus on criticizing God-of-the- Gaps, Cosmological-Argument types of reasoning), but plenty of recent sources in the philosophy of religion literature present those arguments lucidly enough to be usable in debate33.

Finally, although it may seem like a crude way of approaching the issue, studies of expert opinion over the last couple of decades have become increasingly decisive—a recent, widely cited survey of nearly 1000 professional philosophers found that more than 72 percent self-identified as atheists, as against less than 15 percent who self- identified as theists34, while a slightly older survey of the National Academy of Sciences (to which highly regarded scientists are invited, pretty selectively, by their peers) showed the same rate of atheism in that group, but an additional 20 percent rate of agnosticism and only 7 percent on the side of theism35. I donʼt think it would be all that

32 See Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Mariner Books, 2008); Daniel C. Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Penguin (Non-Classics), 2007); Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (Vintage, 2008); Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, 1st ed. (Twelve, 2009); as well as Sam Harris, previously cited. 33 For some representative examples of this genre, see Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1992); Keith M Parsons, Why I am not a Christian (Freethought Press, 2000); Keith M. Parsons, God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytic Defense of Theism (Prometheus Books, 1990); David Ramsay Steele, Atheism Explained: From Folly to Philosophy (Open Court, 2008); and J. J. C. Smart and J. J. Haldane, Atheism and Theism, 2nd ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2002). For the representation of the other side in contemporary philosophy, see anything by Alvin Plantinga, e.g. God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Cornell University Press, 1990) or Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, USA, 2000). 34 See http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl. 35 See E.J. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading scientists still reject God”, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 61 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com unreasonable for negatives to argue that it is absurd to regard as sacrosanct from criticism, in whatever forum, views which already possess such low standing among the relevant community of experts36.

All of these, then, seem like compelling reasons why “sensitive religious issues” both can be and ought to be confronted.

Wrong forum? But, of course, the next question is where they should be confronted. The approach weʼve just been considering focuses almost exclusively on the tail end of the resolution (“confront sensitive religious issues”), but another very reasonable approach, which Iʼd recommend to affirmatives, focuses instead on the front end—“High school Public Forum debate.”

There are “wrong forum” arguments to be made on the affirmative both about high school debate in general, and about Public Forum debate in particular, of which I think the latter are probably the more compelling, but weʼll spend a little time considering both.

To start with the former: Iʼve already alluded to some of the arguments against trying to address matters of religion in the context of a high school debate round—not all high school students may have the intellectual maturity or equanimity to handle such discussions; many students are beholden to the beliefs of their parents and would not be allowed to, or would feel pressured against, debating such topics freely; and, at worst, many students might be unable to participate in debate at all if their only option were to debate a resolution that invited arguments offensive to their (or their parentsʼ)

36 As a philosophy student and partisan of my own discipline, I would argue that philosophers are the ones composing that community and that the scientists don’t really know what they’re talking about, but I’ll admit room for reasonable disagreement here. If you’re of the opinion that there can be no such thing when it comes to issues of metaphysics, pick up a serious paper or two on the ontological argument or the fine-tuning argument, and I think you’ll be convinced otherwise. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 62 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com religious beliefs. This last argument is one that most judges, former debaters, and— especially—debate coaches will have a lot of sympathy for. If a Muslim student is not allowed to debate the Park51 topic, and ends up quitting debate (or is forced to quit debate) as a consequence, itʼs hard to see what good has come from the topic being debated. However great the benefits of being forced to critically evaluate religious beliefs, mo one really benefits much from hearing other peopleʼs beliefs challenged, and if the very students for whom the challenge might actually be challenging have no opportunity to participate in the discussion, then itʼs like we threw a party for someone who never showed up.

The difficulty for this argument is amassing anything better than anecdotal evidence in support of it. Of that thereʼs a good deal, largely from coaches on comment threads complaining about the original topic, but negatives will likely argue that the last topic was unrepresentative for precisely the same reasons that many of those coaches would—perhaps far fewer Muslim students would be unwilling or unable to debate a religiously topic where the issue at stake was not so offensively trivial and unreasonable. Of course, for something to qualify as sensitive seems to imply that thereʼs a perception of unreasonability on the part of offended believers, but people are more willing to engage some unreasonabilities than others. Nonetheless, I think thereʼs an argument here—as I see it, the argument is that anyone who sticks around voluntarily to debate is already open-minded enough that the actual process of debating a few rounds on that topic isnʼt likely to open their minds any more. Anyone who simply cannot see the other side of a religiously charged issue at the outset is not likely to attempt the feat for the sake of competing at a couple more debate tournaments. I donʼt know whether this argument is true or not, but itʼs an argument.

The more interesting arguments, though, are in my opinion specific to Public Forum debate. I am profoundly unconvinced by the claim that high school students are incapable of thinking capably about issues as “deep” and “weighty” as those of religion, and similarly unconvinced by the claim that said depth and weightiness makes those 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 63 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com issues unsuitable for the sort of compression that occurs in a debate round—if high school students can debate meta-ethics semi-cogently at 350 words per minute (as we have seen, in LD over the last year or so, that at least a few of them can), then they can do the same with questions of religion, and the idea that religion somehow uniquely must only be discussed in hushed and measured tones with an attitude of careful and scrupulous truth-seeking strikes me as totally ungrounded. But (he said, returning at last to the topic sentence of his paragraph), there may be some decent reasons why those sorts of debates are ill-suited to Public Forum, given its particular mandate as a debate form.

To start with the obvious: Public Forum rounds are much shorter than policy rounds, and much slower than (many) LD rounds—there are simply fewer words in a PF round, and the speech times are divided up into small increments, making the extended presentation of any argument above a certain level of complexity difficult or impossible. Religion may not be the most profoundest thing in the whole wide world, but it certainly has a higher conceptual threshold for entry than the political issues that debate resolutions normally address, and especially the current-events-driven issues that PF resolutions normally address. The war in Afghanistan is plenty complex, very arguably more complex in the last analysis than questions like the existence of God, but the amount of that complexity that one needs to grasp to hold a meaningful opinion about Afghanistan is also arguably quite a bit lower, and the number of words it takes to clearly present the basic structure of an argument for our against our Afghan policy is considerably lower than what is needed for the analogous task in a theism debate. Public Forum might want to steer clear of debates over religion for essentially the same reason that it has steered clear of debates over postmodern philosophy or nanotechnology—theyʼre unsuitable to both the format and the intent of the activity.

I havenʼt really talked about the “intent” part of that last statement yet, and that forms the basis for a second argument. If Public Forum debate is intended to be exactly what its name suggests, then that provides another reason for avoiding both irreducibly complex 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 64 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com (hard) and potentially sensitive topics for debate, in the interest of maximizing the appeal of the activity to a wider public. If any form of high school debate is ever going to attract a real outside audience (which was what PF was created in large part to do), then it has to talk about topics that people want to hear about, and neither debates over theology and philosophy of religion, nor attacks on the religious beliefs of said wider audience fit that bill. (Of course, putting the argument that way practically shoves the potential turn in the negativeʼs face—as a matter of fact, a lot of the public loves religious controversy, even if not usually at the expense of their own religion. But this argument seems a bit to overtly cynical to gain a lot of traction in front of most judges.)

A final argument has to do with another of the original founding purposes of PFD, that of maximizing student participation in debate. The PF-specific version of the kids-will-quit argument above would say that, while LD and policy have both to some extent accepted higher thresholds for participation, and consequently lowered rates of participation, as the price of the push towards more technical style and more esoteric arguments, PF exists precisely to satisfy the demand for debate that canʼt be met by those activities, and that whatever the ostensive benefits of debating religion might be, thereʼs no good reason why those debates could not be kept to the activities where the goal of full inclusion is regarded as less paramount. In particular, debates over issues of religion seem uniquely suited to the founding (and continuing) mandate of LD to provide a venue for debating questions of philosophy. If thereʼs a way to formulate it that wonʼt butt up against judgesʼ reflex of anything that sounds like a counter plan, the “Do it in LD instead” affirmative might actually be a very winnable position. As an LD coach who would be more than happy to coach a religion topic, I would certainly be sympathetic to that argument.

A final note In terms of generating arguments, itʼs worth your while to spend some time thinking very specifically about other conceivable debate topics besides Park51 which might fall under the scope of the resolution, and what the particular arguments for or against 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 65 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com debating them might be. Abortion is an obvious one, and it goes without saying that the stock affirmative arguments become extremely compelling in that context—it would be hard to get more than three or four debaters to show up at any given local tournament anywhere in the Bible Belt to debate both sides of an abortion resolution. Euthanasia might be a more moderate instance of essentially the same issue. In both cases, one could see the advantage of forcing students with deeply entrenched views on either side of the issue to engage in the more dispassionate, non-invested sort of reasoning which debate demands.

Other topics which might be sensitive for Muslims could include things like the restrictions on Muslim dress currently being considered or enacted in many European countries (although itʼs unlikely that weʼd ever debate a question of exclusively European politics, and similarly unlikely that those particular issues will jump the Atlantic any time soon; the closest analogue in the US might be the question of workplace accommodations for dress and prayer), or free speech/“hate speech” issues surrounding things like the republication of the Mohammed cartoons, or Quran-burning (which but for its sensitivity I could easily see becoming a PFD topic).

For Jewish religious sensitivities, the clear analogue of Quran-burning is the free speech rights of anti-Semitic groups and Holocaust-deniers (although the sensitivity there is arguably more racial than religious). Again, whether these topics would ever be likely to turn into NFL resolutions is not obvious, but they donʼt seem all that much less likely than the Park51 topic would have seemed a few weeks ago.

Iʼm sure that there is an imaginable debate resolution that might confront the religious sensitivities of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Janis, Zoroastrians and Shinto…ists (?) as well, but I canʼt think of any off the top of my head, so Iʼll leave those to you as an exercise.

Conclusion 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 66 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com Whatever you think of this topic, and however you decide to approach this, youʼre almost certainly never going to have another topic like it again, so make the most of it while it lasts and donʼt try to treat it like any other resolution. If there was ever a time to think creatively about arguments (and to think critically about the activity youʼre engaged in and its various reasons for being), this is it. I saw someone, immediately after the topic was announced, post something to the effect of “Debating about debating is the dumbest thing Iʼve ever heard,” and while Iʼm not of the same mind as the many theory debaters and theory-loving coaches in LD and policy who doubtless cried themselves to sleep after reading that comment, I still have to disagree with the sentiment. We all spend enough time doing debate that we should spend at least a little time thinking about it, and a resolution that forces everyone to do that, if only for a month, is not something you should spend too much time complaining about. So, good luck, and have fun!

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to shoot me an email at [email protected]. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 67 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

GENERAL EVIDENCE

TOPIC IN PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE IS MEANT TO FOCUS ON CURRENT ISSUES Durkee, John. Debate Coach at Laramie HS. “Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds.” Rostrum. January 2003.

All debate flows from an adopted resolution. The resolution provides the general field of argument; that is, it frames the territory over which a judge will decide or the parameters of permissible arguments for the advocates of each side. Topics must diagrammatically place in balance an idea which permits evaluation. In the sample topics provided so far the weighing word was should. This word can have policy and/or moral implications; that is, should places a burden upon the debaters to provide sufficient argument, analysis and/or evidence to substantiate a claim to the truth of the resolution. The word ʻshouldʼ places any resolution in an indefinite time. This means a debater can argue what is or what should be; and in the case of the negative (con) what should not be, whether it is or is not yet. The topic then establishes the non-immediacy of the topic, removing practical necessity as an evaluative criteria allowing ideology and emotion to also play a part. That is, ʻshouldʼ asks for reason and analysis, not action. Ted Turner Debate topics have an immediacy, and urgency unlike traditional debate topics. While different topics will have more of a policy or more of a values focus, which will show in the tactics of debating, each topic shares the immediacy of todayʼs news. Either form of topic in a Ted Turner Debate round will not likely be adjudicated upon the merits of an implementation of a particular policy or an underlying universal value, but instead will be evaluated within the framework of contemporary media metaphors: “How do I feel about the topic?” “Which debater is more trustworthy?” “Who has the better ethos?” Finally, the non- expert judge will bring an interpretive criteria of the common understanding of the topic. What this means for the debater is that this common understanding of the issues involved in the topic relate directly to the judgeʼs own life, not to a theoretical interpretation of the topic. This limits the field and range of topicality arguments to a very small number; a mere question during Crossfire should suffice to make the topicality argument. Topicality as an argumentative tactic must yield to topicality as an implied given of the resolution. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 68 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

DEBATERS IN PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE MUST READ AND ADAPT TO JUDGES Durkee, John. Debate Coach at Laramie HS. “Ted Turner Debate: Establishing Theoretical Grounds.” Rostrum. January 2003.

Lay judges provide the test of an informed citizen judge. This places the judge in an old role, silent audience. Unlike the judge who noisily prattles to the debaters about this paradigm and that theory, this hate and that love, the lay judge will sit in silence. Personally, I find this refreshing. Debate is not well served by judges who insist upon debaters adapting to their own peccadilloes. Good judges are always tabula rasa. Good judges in any debate event enjoy innovations by debaters; rewarding thinking and diminishing the value of stale, purchased arguments. While experienced debate judges often find their personal voting criteria the subject of discussion prior to higher level policy rounds, what kind of paradigmatic advice can be provided to debaters about judges who are in their first round of a new event? Students should rely upon polls of citizens, extrapolating an average judge from regional demographic trends. More practically, the desired stance of the debaters is audience exploration. In this new event the judge will have longer-sustained eye contact with the debaters. Reciprocating debaters will use the information provided non-verbally by the judges to measure argument success adjusting to the clues provided by the judge. Practice, then, focuses upon reading a judge. Coaching may involve learning the occupation, political affiliation, or civic organization associated with the judge and using this information to prepare debaters during pre-round preparation. Good coaching will also rely upon teaching the proven techniques of adapting to the information provided non-verbally by the critic in this round of debate. (JL)

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE IS MEANT TO GROW THE NFL BY APPEALING TO THE PUBLIC Roberts, Donus. Retired nine diamond coach at Watertown HS. “Controversy: NFLʼs New Debate Event.” Rostrum, November 2002.

Why is NFL Considering a New Debate Division? The NFL began as a debate organization with extemp, oratory and interp added in that order. NFL sponsors three interp events, three public address events (two extemps and oratory) and two debate events, policy and LD. Of the approximate 1700 charter NFL schools in our organization, about 600 do policy debate, about 1250 do LD debate and approximately 1500 do some mix of individual events. NFL's current growth is entirely in individual events. LD is growing marginally. Policy debate is falling precipitously. The net result is an organization on a plateau. Some years memberships are up 1%, some years down 1%. That something will change in the immediate future to improve our lot seems rose-colored thinking. Financially NFL has to grow to pay the bills. We have two ways to finance the core NFL: raise membership/chapter dues or grow the organization. Most of the grants to NFL are targeted. Less than 5% of the grant money can be used to operate the league. To stay even NFL needs to increase revenue from memberships, chapter dues and merchandise sales by 5% a year. And NFL has no event to market to the media, whether the media is CNN, CSPAN, cable access TV, service clubs or parents. Policy debate and LD debate have become specialized, filled with code- words that ordinary people do not understand on topics people don't wish to hear. Debaters often talk beyond the speed limit. Extemp has also become a documentation speech, oratory has become interp, interp has become filled with innuendo and explicitness. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 69 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE IS MEANT TO BRING IN NEW STUDENTS WHO DONʼT WANT TO COMMIT Roberts, Donus. Retired nine diamond coach at Watertown HS. “Controversy: NFLʼs New Debate Event.” Rostrum, November 2002.

Our first target is students who do not debate now because current debate is a lifetime commitment. These are bright students who want diversified activities. They are not interested in researching a topic for a year or most of a year. They are attracted to Academic Decathlons, Model UNs, Odyssey of the Mind or similar contests. They want to play a game but not be consumed by the game. Our second target is schools that currently do not debate, maybe never have. We believe that the cost and complexity of current debate has made debate impossible for small schools and for schools without extensive financial resources. We want a debate division that is doable for schools like Chamberlain, Platte and Parkston, schools that had debate 20 years ago, as well as for schools like Harrisburg, West Central and Tri Valley, schools who have not ever had debate. [The above examples are in South Dakota but you know of others in your state.] We want to target a student who will debate if s/he does not have to miss school so much or who does not have to compete every weekend to keep up or attend a summer camp. With computer scheduling, on Saturdays, four rounds of debate could be held, plus semis and finals. We want talented teachers in schools to coach this division without having to learn the special language of the current divisions. These talented teachers currently advise quiz bowls, academic decathlons, etc. Because of the time commitment, they would not become involved with the current debate divisions. We need to have this division judged by community adults, chaperones or teachers who do not need to learn a special language and listen to high pitch speed-talking. These people care deeply about public issues. Each round will move rapidly and take about half an hour to complete. (JL)

DEBATE MUST EMPHASIZE CRITICAL THINKING AS WELL AS COMMUNICATION Shuster, Kate. Director of Claremont Colleges National Debate Outreach. “Saying ʻNoʼ to the Punditocracy: A Critique of Public Forum Debate.” Rostrum, April 2004.

There is little doubt that students must be encouraged to voice informed opinions on a wide variety of subjects with confidence. Oral literacy and oral communication skills are critical for success in middle school, high school, and beyond. The need for these skills is recognized in state and local educational content standards across the United States. Done correctly, debate instruction (and instruction in select individual events) teaches argumentation and media literacy, including the associated skills of research, evidence evaluation, organization, summarization, refutation, note-taking, and active listening. Ideally, debate training will prepare students to become active and informed citizens and members of their communities. Through participation in debating, they will be able to critically analyze arguments in public and private arenas. Students will learn to identify the assumptions of arguments, to question the validity of sources of information, and otherwise perform the basic skills that are commonly referred to as “critical thinking” skills. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 70 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE IS UNIQUELY ABLE TO BRING NEW STUDENTS IN Cox, Scott. Forensics Coach at Upper Marion Area HS. “Reflections of a CX-Baby on the New-Fangled Public Forum Debate Format.” Rostrum, January 2004.

In the meantime, I have an effective training tool. Although PFD need not be reserved for novice debaters, I have found it especially effective in giving novices a quick taste of competitive argumentation. PFD has a theoretical simplicity that is easy to teach. It strives to encourage a speaking style that is easy to understand. It offers a format that is short enough to allow frequent practice of complete rounds. It requires skills that are easy to transfer to class discussions, public speeches, and written papers. It changes topics so frequently that students can always hold out hope for a topic theyʼll like better. PFD also offers other opportunities to expand debate to a wider audience. Our team has already recorded debates for our schoolʼs cable access station, which raised community awareness of the teamʼs existence and gave individual debaters public recognition of their efforts that they had not yet experience. Our team has also been involved in preparing and participating in a student forum on current events (initially, the war in Iraq), and PFD could provide the foundation of a debate format that could be understood and appreciated by a general audience of students. Other teachers in our high school have asked for resources on conducting debates in their classes, and PFD gives a simple framework that can plausibly be taught in a few class periods and completed in a single period. All of these opportunities could enlarge the audience for debate in a way that policy debate probably could not, and enlarge the pool of students interested in competitive debate. (JL)

TOPICS MUST BE RELEVANT, BALANCED, AND RESEARCHABLE Kline, Jason. 2008-2009 NFL PFD Resolution Wording Committee Chair. “Writing the Public Forum Debate Resolution.” Rostrum, October 2008.

As part of the commentary portion of voting, the committee will discuss the viability of a topic according to strict criteria. First, the topic needs to be relevant in some way to current events or academic inquiry. In some instances a topic may seem like a great idea but may lack relevance when it is released. During the past summer, for example, there was a lot of talk about the United States boycotting the Chinese Olympics. That topic could have been very good if it were to be debated in July, but given that the Olympics would have been over long before the topic were debated, it was not a good choice. Next, the topic must be balanced in terms of argumentation between the pro and the con. Public Forum Debate places no specific burdens on either side of the debate. Therefore, in considering a topic, the committee considers potential arguments in favor or against the issue. In many instances, a topic seems at first glance to be a great idea. Yet after a few days of inquiry and analysis, we might find that the argumentation significantly favors one side or the other. The discussion over this aspect of many potential topics often evolves into a debate itself among committee members. Finally, the committee looks into availability of research for the topic. Public Forum Debate was designed to be accessible to all students. In accordance with that mission, the PFD Resolution Committee works to determine whether a topic can be adequately researched through the internet. In some instances, the committee may ask the author of a potential topic to provide a sampling of links indicating the quantity and quality of information that is available. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 71 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

PUBLIC FORUM IS STILL ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR ITS GROWTH “A Closer Look at Public Forum Debate Topic Selection.” Rostrum, October 2010. http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/1010_012_013.pdf

When Public Forum Debate began in 2003, it was designed to engage community members and new groups of students in the world of debate. The resolutions which frame Public Forum debates are “ripped from the headlines,” involving relevant and timely issues that educate and involve the community on significant public issues. Because Public Forum was designed to target community members and new debaters, the resolutions serve a critical role in ensuring the outreach and appeal of Public Forum Debate. Today, seven years after the creation of Public Forum Debate, the event is thriving. District participation in Public Forum rose to nearly 5,000 students during 2009-2010, more than double since the eventʼs inception, and national tournament entries in PFD rose correspondingly. Throughout this growth process, as Public Forum Debate resolutions have begun to affect more and more people, the process for determining those resolutions has rightfully garnered more attention and scrutiny. Understanding the way Public Forum resolutions are created may help shed light on the event and the way it operates. Further, it may help students and coaches as they seek to analyze the resolution that frames their debates each month. (JL)

CERTAIN STANDARDS GUIDE TOPIC SELECTION “A Closer Look at Public Forum Debate Topic Selection.” Rostrum, October 2010. http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Rostrum/1010_012_013.pdf

The 2010-2011 Advisory Committee possesses an outstanding cachet of debate experience and success. Current members include Tim Averill (MA), Jason Kline (NC), Kandi King (TX), Donus Roberts (SD), and Cherian Koshy (WI). The Public Forum Advisory Committeeʼs deliberation is guided by a number of considerations, including the 2006 recommendations of the Public Forum Committee. The committee proposed that the wording of Public Forum Debate resolutions should be evaluated under the following principles: timeliness, debatability, clarity, availability of research on both sides, fair ground, balance (avoiding side bias), media relevance, community and student interest, and public understandability (also known as the “reasonable person standard”). (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 72 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

PRO EVIDENCE

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AND THUS SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF ACADEMIC DEBATE Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM Third, a point that Author A does not address is the fact that the beliefs of many religious people are based on faith, not on reason. Of course, faith need not oppose reason. Rather, the point of this objection is that those who have faith typically do not base their religious beliefs on or in reason. As a result, they would not want to, or necessarily have the capacity to, evaluate these beliefs critically. Because there is no basis of reason underlying these beliefs, they are not fruitfully explored in an educational setting. The best result that such an inquiry could yield would he to instill an awareness of what others believe, not whether they have good reasons for supporting those beliefs. The requirement to provide sound justification for one's beliefs is seemingly a central condition of education — it is what separates education from indoctrination. Because religion is often not based in reason, it is best left out of the educational arena, or so one could argue.

RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION INVOLVES METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTS THAT DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO QUALITY DEBATE AND EDUCATION Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM Fourth, the kinds of claims evaluated in schools focus on truth with a small "t." Schools do not (or at least they should not, I would argue) claim that they are revealing the eternal, unchanging, absolute Truth about matters; rather, they are (or should he) arguing that given the standards of justification we generally agree upon, these particular claims are ones we can believe to be true (that is, they are justifiable on the basis of our standards of evaluation and the kinds of evidence open to us). This argument builds on the third point and moves us toward the question of whether truth should be bracketed. Because religions often make claims about metaphysical Truths (that is. Truths with a capital "T") that are be- yond the scope of our evaluation, we need to question what type of role they can productively play in our classrooms. This is not to say that such open-ended questions cannot be part of the curriculum — I believe there are very good reasons to think that we should focus more on such questions — but it does mean that we need to make students aware that the answers sought by this type of questioning are different in kind from the truths generally taught in schools.

SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES WOULD CAUSE PARENTS TO PULL THEIR STUDENTS OUT OF THE ACTIVITY Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM Related to this fourth argument is the issue of strength of belief. Many religious people hold their views without question — their faith is unshakeable. To submit religious claims to questioning in an educational setting demands the open-mindedness of all discussants. In encouraging our students to be critical thinkers, we ask them both to consider seriously that others might have good reasons for holding their own beliefs and also to scrutinize critically their own beliefs. However, many religious parents would not want their children to question their faith in this manner, nor would many religious students want to do so. 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 73 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

Thus, if this sort of inquiry is what including the study of religion in public schools entails, many religious people would likely prefer that religion remain excluded.'

EVEN IF RELIGIOUS ISSUES COULD BE DEBATED, THERE WOULD BE NO COMPROMISE AND/OR CONSENSUS Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM The same might he said of the various religious traditions. They are like incompatible paradigms that cannot be (or at least have not been) reconciled. Each represents a way of understanding the world that provides standards of evidence and inference for those operating within that tradition. In this way, religion is similar to many subjects that are more commonly taught within our schools. As Israel Scheffler describes them, subject areas are simply agreed-upon conventions that provide rules for how that particular game should be played.' Like religion, mainstream subject areas often have some disagreement at the margins of the discipline. For example, some historians believe that oral narratives provide perfectly sound historical evidence, while other historians argue that only written records can be accepted as evidence. Still, on the whole, most historians agree about what constitutes history and how history is done. In the same way, most Baptists, for example, agree with each other about what constitutes truth or sound justification for claims. But just as historians will differ from physicists regarding the rules of inference and what qualifies as evidence, so too Baptists will differ from Buddhists. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect to find some standard that could find agreement across all of these different traditions.

THERE IS NO STANDARD OF TRUTH TO EVALUATE RELIGIOUS ISSUES AGAINST Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM The difference between Author A and myself on this relativism question might reveal a deeper division rooted in how we understand truth. My notion of truth follows from Karl Popper's idea of falsifisabihty.'^ No claim can ever be proven to be absolutely true, but if we take the claim as a hypothesis, subject it to all available tests of validity, and fail to defeat it, we can be reasonably confident of its truth. On the other hand, if we can defeat the claim, then we have reason to think that it is not true. To apply this idea to our dispute, no one has proven that there is not a standard that transcends any specific religion and against which all religions should be evaluated. But we do have evidence that perfectly intelligent and reasonable people from many different traditions arrive at different answers regarding religious questions. This fact would seem to provide grounds for thinking that no transcendent standard exists.

DEBATING SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES WOULD LEAD TO DISRESPECT AND INTOLERANCE Rosenblith, Suzanne, and Scott Priestman. "PROBLEMATIZING RELIGIOUS TRUTH: IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION." Educational Theory 54.4 (2004): 365-380. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010. SM I want to make one final point regarding the issue of relativism. Nord and Noddings assert that it is necessary to recenter religion in our public schools in order to promote respect and tolerance. Author A claims that while this is a noble goal, by bracketing truth, we may actually be promoting disrespect and intolerance. This is an important claim to consider. Determining the actual effect of removing the issue of truth from the study of religion would require performing research to gather empirical data. But even without such data, we can speculate about what kinds of consequences Author A's alternative might have. The primary goal of not bracketing matters of truth would be to see if some religious views are truer than others. But to reach this conclusion, one would have to conclude that some religious views are wrong. We can easily imagine whether students who ascribe to these views would feel respected and tolerated (not very!). Here, too, we seem to have a dangerous confluence of church and state, to say nothing of the disrespect shown to individuals.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 74 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS ISSUES DEMAND A SENSATIVITY THAT SECULAR DEBATES MAY INFRINGE UPON Farber, Paul. “TONGUE TIED: ON TAKING RELIGION SERIOUSLY IN SCHOOL.” Educational Theory 45.1 (1995): 85-100. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct 2010. SM Carter, for one, would surely object. His principled stand in support of policies that nurture and sustain religions would make him wary of the imperatives pressed in Noddingsʼs proposals. If, as Carter suggests, the enduring health of democracy depends on the viability of religions as vigorous “exercises in resistance” to the varieties of majoritarian tyranny, we must be vigilant with regard to the overreaching of a secularism that fails to respect the integrity of diverse religious cultures, and threatens to reduce all faiths to the status of hobbies. He calls for restraint and greater sensitivity to the significance of our religious differences.

IMPARTIAL AND INFORMED DECISION MAKING IS BETTER Ignatieff, 07 member of the independent international commission on Kosovo and former fellow at Kingʼs College, Cambrige; École des Hautes Études, Paris; and St. Antonyʼs College, Oxford; and Visiting Prof of Human Rights Practice at Harvard (Michael, August 5, 2007 “Getting Iraq Wrong,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/magazine/05iraq- t.html?ei=5090&en=cb304d04accc6df8&ex=1343966400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=al l) Machiavelli argued that political judgment, to be effective, must follow principles more ruthless than those acceptable in ordinary life. He wrote that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.” Roosevelt and Churchill knew how to do wrong, yet they did not demand to be judged by different ethical standards than their fellow citizens did. They accepted that democratic leaders cannot make up their own moral rules, a stricture that applies both at home and abroad — in Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else. They must live and be judged by the same rules as everyone else. Yet in some areas political and personal judgments are very different. In private life, you take attacks personally and would be a cold fish if you didnʼt. In politics, if you take attacks personally, you display vulnerability. Politicians have to learn to appear invulnerable without appearing inhuman. Being human, they are bound to revenge insults. But they also have to learn that revenge, as it has been said, is a dish best served cold. Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel.

DEBATING BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE IS CRITICAL TO DEBATE AND SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES HANDICAPP THAT Dickson, 2k4 Assistant Prof at Queens Collage, Developing "Real-World Intelligence": Teaching Argumentative Writing through Debate Randi Dickson. English Journal. The modeling of the debate makes everyone eager to participate. Students seem to enjoy debating, especially as part of a team effort, and they feel empowered by becoming knowledgeable on a subject that the outside world has been debating as well. The experience of speaking from a knowledge base and knowing why one feels as one does is powerful. Students feel grown-up, discussing issues their parents and legislators might discuss and knowing that they are conversant on the subject. For the next round, I ask each student to come in with one or two current and controversial subjects. We put these on the board, and I take a few minutes to discuss each one and its "debatability"; that is, we quickly brainstorm the pros and cons to make sure it is a viable topic for argument. We then vote on the most popular and intriguing topics. Depending on the size of the class, we usually end up with three or four teams of six to eight members who have chosen a topic. Each group then meets and negotiates the positions. Sometimes students have to be on a side they do not personally agree with, but they learn that the skills involved are still the same and investigating the other position is a way to explore one's personal view.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 75 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIONS LIMITED COMPROMISE MEANS IT IS NOT WELL SUITED FOR ACADEMIC DEBATE Shively, Prof Politics at Tx A&M, 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 182) The point may seem trite, as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic terms must be shared before they can be resisted and problematized. In fact, they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. But admitting the paradox is not helpful if, as usually happens here, its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. For what the paradox should tell us is that some kinds of harmonies or orders are, in fact, good for resistance; and some ought to be fully supported. As such, it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain full-fledged ambiguists, they cannot admit to these implications, for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good and some orders as helpful or necessary, is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. Perhaps they might just continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic, but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of subversion. Yet difficulties remain. For agreement is not simply the initial condition, but the continuing ground, for contest. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements, we cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. For debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is, they are activities premised on the building of progressive agreements. Imagine, for instance, that two people are having an argument about the issue of gun control. As noted earlier, in any argument, certain initial agreements will be needed just to begin the discussion. At the very least, the two discussants must agree on basic terms: for example, they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing about it; what facts are being contested, and so on. They must also agree—and they do so simply by entering into debate—that they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are willing to listen to, and to be persuaded by, good arguments. Such agreements are simply implicit in the act of argumentation.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 76 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

THE BENEFITS OF DEBATE ARE LOST WHEN THE PARTICIPANTS ARE NOT ABLE TO DEBATE BOTH SIDES AND CONSIDER EACH ARGUMENT Dickson, 2k4 Assistant Prof at Queens Collage, Developing "Real-World Intelligence": Teaching Argumentative Writing through Debate Randi Dickson. English Journal. (High school edition). In learning about argument and preparing debates, students learn critical-thinking skills, such as the ability to "identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint, and consider and respond to counterarguments" (Yeh 49). Yeh's study, an important examination of the "effectiveness of two heuristics based on Toulmin's (1958) model of argument and classical rhetoric for helping middle- school students . . . write argumentative essays" (49), begins by examining the place of argument in school and the workplace. He says, "The ability to write effective arguments influences grades, academic success, and preparation for college and employment" (49), and he examines the importance of being able to "pose and defend contestable ideas" (MacKinnon, qtd. in Yeh 51) in most academic and workplace settings. Argumentation and debate are crucial to participation in democracy. Richard Fulkerson, in Teaching the Argument in Writing, says, "As I perceive argumentation, it is the chief cognitive activity by which a democracy, a field of study, a corporation, or a committee functions. . . . And it is vitally important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the arguments of others" (16). Deanna Kuhn, author of "Thinking as Argument," would concur. Results from her research study indicate that "[i]t is in argument that we find the most significant way in which higher order thinking and reasoning figure in the lives of most people" and that "social contexts, such as the classroom, are the most promising arena for practicing and developing argumentative thinking skills" (155). Kuhn looks to the skills developed when students learn argument as being vital to all aspects of life. Beyond the next grade and the next job, she believes that thinking as argument reflects "real-world intelligence" and that "no other kind of thinking matters more-or contributes more-to the quality and fulfillment of people's lives, both individually and collectively" (156). The ability to form and hold beliefs, make judgments, and consider opposing views is vital to the significant decisions that people make in their lives.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE NOT SUITED TO DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF INHERENT AND INTENSE PREJUDICE Ghosh, Bobby. "Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem? - TIME." Time.com. Time Magazine, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. . SM. But when the floor is opened to discussion, you hear things they would never say to you even in the privacy of an examination room. One after another, they pour scorn and hostility on your proposal, and most of the objections have nothing to do with zoning regulations. It's about your faith. Islam is a religion of hate, they say. Muslims are out to wipe out Christianity. There are 20 jihadi training camps hidden across rural America, busy even now producing the next wave of terrorists. Muslims murder their children. Christian kids have enough problems with drugs, alcohol and pornography and should not have to worry about Islam too. "I don't want it in my backyard," says one. Another says, "I just think it's not America."

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 77 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

POLITICIANS POUNCE ON SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES TO GET VOTES AND SUPPORT Ghosh, Bobby. "Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem? - TIME." Time.com. Time Magazine, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. . SM. Some opponents are genuinely concerned that an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero would offend the families of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the attack on the World Trade Center. Paul Walier, a Buffalo, N.Y., lawyer whose sister Margaret died in the towers, acknowledges that Rauf and Khan are within their constitutional rights but adds, "I just don't think it's the appropriate thing to do." You don't have to be prejudiced against Islam to believe, as many Americans do, that the area around Ground Zero is sacred. But sadly, in an election season, such sentiments have been stoked into a volatile political issue by Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. As the debate has grown more heated, the project has become a litmus test for everything from private-property rights to religious tolerance. But as in Wisconsin, some of Park51's opponents are motivated by a troubling Islamophobia.

HATRED AND INTOLERANCE IN AMERICA IS GROWING. A DEBATE OVER SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES WOULD BE NEITHER FAIR NOR GOOD. Ghosh, Bobby. "Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem? - TIME." Time.com. Time Magazine, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. . SM. Muslim Americans need no convincing. The Park51 uproar, says Ebrahim Moosa, an associate professor of Islamic studies at Duke University, "is part of a pattern of intolerance" against Muslims that has existed since 9/11 but has deepened in the past few years. Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. "Islamophobia has become the accepted form of racism in America," says Muslim-American writer and commentator Arsalan Iftikhar. "You can always take a potshot at Muslims or Arabs and get away with it."

MAINSTREAM AMERICA ARE INSENSATIVE ABOUT RELIGIOUS ISSUES Ghosh, Bobby. "Mosque Controversy: Does America Have a Muslim Problem? - TIME." Time.com. Time Magazine, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. . SM. But where ordinary Americans meet Islam, there is evidence that suspicion and hostility are growing. To be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith — not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country's most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery. In France and Britain, politicians from fringe parties say appalling things about Muslims, but there's no-one in Europe with the stature of a former House Speaker who seemed to equate Islam with Nazism, as Gingrich did recently. "The core argument emerging from [the anti-mosque protests] is that Muslims are not and can never be full Americans," says Eboo Patel, an American Muslim on Obama's advisory council on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 78 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES Rawls, John. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” [1997] 64 University of Chicago Law Review 765. SM. The idea of public reason, as I understand it,' belongs to a conception of a well ordered constitutional democratic society. The form and content of this reason-the way it is understood by citizens and how it interprets their political relationship-is part of the idea of democracy itself. This is because a basic feature of democracy is the fact of reasonable pluralism-the fact that a plurality of conflicting reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious, philosophical, and moral, is the normal result of its culture of free institutions. Citizens realize that they cannot reach agreement or even approach mutual understanding on the basis of their irreconcilable comprehensive doctrines. In view of this, they need to consider what kinds of reasons they may reasonably give one another when fundamental political questions are at stake. I propose that in public reason comprehensive doctrines of truth or right be replaced by an idea of the politically reasonable addressed to citizens as citizens.

DEBATE OVER SENSITIVE IDEOLOGICAL ISSUES FAILS TO RESOLVE ANYTHING AND ONLY MAKES MISPERCEPTIONS WORSE Nyhan, Bendan and Jason Reifler. When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2006. SM. As a result, the corrections fail to reduce misperceptions for the most committed participants. Even worse, they actually strengthen misperceptions among ideological subgroups in several cases. Additional results suggest that these conclusions are not specific to the Iraq war; not related to the salience of death; and not a reaction to the source of the correction. Our results thus contribute to the literature on correcting misperceptions in three important respects. First, we provide a direct test of corrections on factual beliefs about politics and show that responses to corrections about controversial political issues vary systematically by ideology. Second, we show that corrective information in news reports may fail to reduce misperceptions and can sometimes increase them for the ideological group most likely to hold those misperceptions. Finally, we establish these findings in the context of contemporary political issues that are salient to ordinary voters. The backfire effects that we found seem to provide further support for the growing literature showing that citizens engage in “motivated reasoning.” While our experiments focused on assessing the effectiveness of corrections, the results show that direct factual contradictions can actually strengthen ideologically grounded factual beliefs – an empirical finding with important theoretical implications. Previous research on motivated reasoning has largely focused on the evaluation and usage of factual evidence in constructing opinions and evaluating arguments (e.g. Taber and Lodge 2006).

RECENT STUDIES PROVE THAT INNACURATE BELIEFS CANNOT BE CORRECTED Nyhan, Bendan and Jason Reifler. When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2006. SM. First, Kuklinski et al. (2000) conducted two experiments attempting to counter misperceptions about federal welfare programs. In the first, which was part of a telephone survey of Illinois residents, randomly selected treatment groups were given either a set of relevant facts about welfare or a multiple-choice quiz about the same set of facts. These groups and a control group were then asked for their opinions about two welfare policy issues. Kuklinski and his colleagues found that respondents had highly inaccurate beliefs about welfare generally; that the least informed people expressed the highest confidence in their answers; and that providing the relevant facts to respondents had no effect on their issue opinions (nor did it in an unreported experiment about health care).

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 79 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS PRODUCE A BACKFIRE EFFECT WHEN CONTRADICTED. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COME TO AGREEMENT OR FIND TRUTH Nyhan, Bendan and Jason Reifler. When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2006. SM. However, individuals who receive unwelcome information may not simply resist challenges to their views. Instead, they may come to support their original opinion even more strongly – what we call a “backfire effect.”5 For instance, in a dynamic process tracing experiment, Redlawsk (2002) finds that subjects who were not given a memory- based processing prime came to view their preferred candidate in a mock election more positively after being exposed to negative information about the candidate.6 Similarly, Republicans who were provided with a frame that attributed prevalence of Type 2 diabetes to neighborhood conditions were less likely to support public health measures targeting social determinants of health than their counterparts in a control condition (Gollust, Lantz, and Ubel 2009). What produces such an effect? While Lebo and Cassino interpret backfire effect-type results as resulting from individuals “simply view[ing] unfavorable information as actually being in agreement with their existing beliefs” (2007: 723), we follow Lodge and Taber (2000) and Redlawsk (2002) in interpreting backfire effects as a possible result of the process by which people counterargue preference- incongruent information and bolster their preexisting views. If people counterargue unwelcome information vigorously enough, they may end up with “more attitudinally congruent information in mind than before the debate” (Lodge and Taber 2000: 209), which in turn leads them to report opinions that are more extreme than they otherwise would have had.

THE BACKFIRE EFFECT MEANS THAT PARTISAN TOPICS ARE POOR CHOICES FOR DEBATE Keohane, Joe. "How Facts Backfire - The Boston Globe." Boston.com. Boston Globe, 11 July 2010. Web. 09 Oct. 2010. . SM. Studies by other researchers have observed similar phenomena when addressing education, health care reform, immigration, affirmative action, gun control, and other issues that tend to attract strong partisan opinion. Kuklinski calls this sort of response the “I know Iʼm right” syndrome, and considers it a “potentially formidable problem” in a democratic system. “It implies not only that most people will resist correcting their factual beliefs,” he wrote, “but also that the very people who most need to correct them will be least likely to do so.”

THE NATURE OF RELIGION MAKES IT INCOMPATIBLE FOR DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTION OF CONFLICTS Roy, Lisa Shaw. “Inculculation, Bias, and Viewpoint Discrimination in Public Schools.” [2005] 32 Pepperdine Law Review 647. SM Many scholars who have joined the debate regarding the role of religion in the public square argue that religion poses special dangers for democracy. Thus even where the Establishment Clause would not prohibit religious speech, such speech should be curtailed to protect democratic institutions and preserve the civil order. They argue that religion is inconsistent with the essential aspects of democracy, because, unlike democracy, religion "relies on unquestioning faith rather than logic, ... seeks to identify absolute and everlasting truth rather than accommodate itself to the fluid, preliminary, and temporary reconciliation of fundamentally inconsistent values, ... [and] locates the primary source of authority over individual behavior outside" of human authority. The asserted result is an intense civil divisiveness that precludes the democratic resolution of conflicts.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 80 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS SPEECH IS MORE PROBELMATIC THAN OTHER TYPES OF SPEECH Gey, Steven G. “When is religious speech not ʻfree speech?ʼ” [2000] University of Illinois Law Review 389. SM. These broad statements seem to leave little room for arguments that the First Amendment permits (and sometimes requires) different treatment of religious speech. And yet treating religious speech differently than other types of speech is precisely what a majority of the Court has always done. The Court would not have decided the school prayer n19 and school Bible-reading n20 cases if religious speech were not more constitutionally problematic than other types of speech. If private religious speech is protected to the same extent as nonreligious speech, then why did all but one member of the Supreme Court hold unconstitutional a [*385] school board's decision to allow students to individually select and read ten Bible verses over the public address system at a public school? n21 The Supreme Court devoted precious time and resources to deciding the school prayer and Bible-reading cases only because an overwhelming majority of the Court recognized that religious speech creates dangers for a political democracy different from the dangers posed by any other type of speech. The religious subject matter alone made the speech in these cases problematic. The differential treatment of religious speech in these cases was not inadvertent. Justice Stewart's lone dissent in the school prayer case specifically rested on the argument that the majority decision improperly attributed private speech to the state: "I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an "official religion' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES CANNOT BE DEBATED DEMOCRATICALLY Gey, Steven G. “When is religious speech not ʻfree speech?ʼ” [2000] University of Illinois Law Review 389. SM. This principle depends on a particular definition of religion, which I have developed elsewhere n318 and will only briefly summarize here. In short, religion in the modern era is defined by three characteristics: "(1) religious principles are derived from a source beyond human control; (2) religious principles are immutable and absolutely authoritative; and (3) religious principles are not based on logic or reason, and, therefore, may not be proved or disproved." n319 The conclusion that religion is incompatible with democratic government also depends on a particular definition of democratic government, which can be summarized simply by stating the negative of the three characteristics of religion. Thus, (1) democratic principles require governmental policies to be under the complete control of the government's (human) citizens; (2) the policies of democratic governments are, by nature, temporary and subject to constant revision; and (3) democratic policies are always subject to empirical and rational critique.

THE IMMUTABILITY OF RELIGION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DEBATE Gey, Steven G. “When is religious speech not ʻfree speech?ʼ” [2000] University of Illinois Law Review 389. SM. More specifically, the first characteristic of religion is a necessary consequence of deriving meaning and authority from an extrahuman figure defined as "God." Although there are many theological variations on the theme of "God" among the world's different religions, the core concept postulates a supreme being beyond the full understanding of humans and certainly beyond their temporal control. The supremacy inherent in every variation of the concept of "God" dictates that to the extent God requires individuals to behave in certain ways, His mandates must supersede the secular demands of the state. Thus, the second characteristic of religion (i.e., that its dictates are immutable and authoritative) defines the core features of a faith that separate religious values from secular concerns. Individuals may dispute, modify, or reject ordinary secular values for reasons of utility, convenience, or even whim. In contrast, religious adherents may not challenge core religious values. The requirement of absolute obedience to these core values is a key manifestation of the superior relationship of God over mortal humans. Core religious dictates and sacred moral obligations are immutable because they come only from God. The obligations are absolutely authoritative; to the extent that they come from a higher authority, they cannot be questioned - much less disobeyed - by anyone seeking to act in accordance with the faith.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 81 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGION OPERATES IN A CLOSED CONTEXT THAT RENDERS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NON- BELIEVERS TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION Gey, Steven G. “When is religious speech not ʻfree speech?ʼ” [2000] University of Illinois Law Review 389. SM. Our different conclusions turn in large part on the political implications of a third characteristic of religion that Professor McConnell and other proponents of greater state involvement with religion tend not to address in their discussions of the Establishment Clause: i.e., that religion is based [*453] on unproved belief - in other words, faith - rather than logic and critical rationality. n321 Although many defenders of religious involvement in politics dislike the reason/belief taxonomy, n322 it is difficult to dispute that religion is a nonrational phenomenon in the modern world. n323 Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason n324 effectively refuted the traditional logical proofs of God's existence, and this refutation transformed religion into a belief system, rather than a system of knowledge or the product of rational analysis. Religious dictates remain subject to critique and analysis but only within the closed context of the faith itself and only by those who have already made the leap of faith necessary to render the discussion about the intricacies of a particular faith meaningful. Outsiders - that is, nonbelievers, or those whose leap of faith has taken them in the direction of another sect - cannot participate in the internal critique of a particular faith. Thus each sect is insular and exclusionary, and infidels are not necessarily given the benefit of the doubt or the indulgence of toleration.

DEBATES ATTEMPT TO FIND THE BEST POLICY OPTION IS INCOMPATABLE WITH RELIGION Gey, Steven G. “When is religious speech not ʻfree speech?ʼ” [2000] University of Illinois Law Review 389. SM. The insularity and exclusivity of modern, faith-driven religion is the most obvious factor that renders religion incompatible with the democratic governance of a pluralistic constitutional state, but, in fact, all three defining characteristics of religion are contrary to the defining characteristics of democracy. Religion relies on extrahuman authority, but the sine qua non of democracy is that those subject to the laws also make those laws. Political decisions cannot be delegated to an unaccountable celestial patriarch or His human agents without abandoning this central feature of democracy, which is government by popular consent. Likewise, core religious principles are absolute and authoritative, but democratic policies are temporary, produced by political compromise, and are always subject to attack and rejection. Precisely because democracy is characterized by the consent of a population whose membership constantly [*454] changes, policies in a democracy must always be tentative and fluid. New majorities eradicate the policies and preferences of old majorities, and no present majority may set policies that cannot be questioned or altered. Finally, religious principles are the product of faith that must remain steadfast even in the face of empirical disproof, n325 while democracy depends on the polity's ability always to reconsider its political judgments when evidence undermines the basis of prior decisions. Critical reason is the lifeblood of democratic decisionmaking but the enemy of faith.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 82 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE IS OFTEN BASED ON OBSERVATION AND IS PERSONAL. NON-BELIEVERS CANNOT ACCESS IT Suzanna Sherry, “Enlightening the Religion Clauses,” 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 473, 478 nn.26-27 (1996). SM. The crucial difference between faith and reason lies in both the source of truth and in what counts as valid evidence of it. These two aspects of truth, of course, are interrelated. For the faithful, the ultimate authority and source of truth is extrahuman, and evidence can - and in some religious traditions, must - be entirely personal to the individual; for the reasonable, both the source and the evidence for the truth lie in common human observation, experience, and reasoning. To have faith is to affirm a transcendent reality, different from that observed by nonbelievers.

THERE IS NO DEFINITION FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A RELIGIOUS ISSUE Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. This definitional dilemma has two aspects. The first is the problem of theological definition, which requires an analysis of the structure of beliefs, which, in turn, are the basis for the requested accommodation. The following questions arise in the course of this analysis: What kinds of ideas are "religious"? For example, is any comprehensive moral doctrine "religious" or must the moral doctrine be derived from an extrahuman metaphysical authority to satisfy the criteria for religion? May agnosticism or atheism ever qualify as a religion? Must religion exist [*151] within a structured set of beliefs and practices that establishes a spiritual hierarchy? If so, will a pantheistic religion ever qualify? Is religion social? Will the accommodation principle protect an undoubtedly devout individual whose idiosyncratic beliefs are not certified by recognized ecclesiastical authorities and do not include common religious indicia such as a catechism and liturgy?

THE DEFINITION OF RELIGION ASSUMES A TRANSCEDENT REALITY THAT IS NOT ARGUABLE Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. In this section, I propose to adopt and expand upon a narrow definition of religion suggested recently by Professor Stanley Ingber. Professor Ingber argues that religion "consists of a 'unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things.'" n433 Although Ingber notes that the sacred aspects of religion are not necessarily bound within theistic concepts, "religious duties must be based in the 'otherworldly' or the transcendent . . . a transcendent reality." n434 The extra-human nature of religious obligation "makes secular law which interferes with divinely ordained responsibilities suspect. Human beings may not undo an obligation not of human making." n435 In sum, religion involves the subordination of the individual will to the unchallengeable dictates of an extra-human, transcendent force or reality.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 83 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS ISSUES CANNOT BE PROVEN TRUE OR FALSE Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. The third element of the narrow definition is necessary because of the evolution in the philosophy of religion. At least since Immanuel Kant's publication of the Critique of Pure Reason, n439 theistic forms of religion have been unable to rely upon the traditional logical proofs of God's existence. n440 This transformation in the nature of theistic religion [*169] rendered God unknowable and placed theistic religion on the same foundation with nontheistic religion -- a manifestation of human faith alone. A. J. Ayer put a linguistic spin on this transformation by noting that the disappearance of demonstrable proof that God exists robs religious utterances of any cognitive value whatever. n441 "[The theist's] assertions cannot possibly be valid, but they cannot be invalid either. As he says nothing at all about the world, he cannot justly be accused of saying anything false, or anything for which he has insufficient grounds." n442 It is irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the evolution of philosophy and theology have rendered religious utterances merely unprovable or utterly nonsensical. The significant fact is that a theology based on belief rather than on reason creates a far more precarious basis for political action, certainly far too unstable a foundation to serve as the basis for the coercive application of religious principles to everyone in society. n443

RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS ARE NOT HUMAN QUESTIONS Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. This authority may be channeled through representative agencies and mediated by constitutional processes, but a democratic government's ultimate claim to legitimacy must be that those subject to the dictates of the system acquiesce to the system's exercise of power. Conversely, when a government places its imprimatur on principles derived from an extra-human source, or uses its resources to cultivate allegiance to an extra-human authority, it implicitly places certain political questions [*174] beyond human control. Democracy depends on the perpetuation of a healthy anti-authoritarian mindset among the citizenry; religion cultivates deference to some authority or power that cannot be questioned or changed, or even fully comprehended by the human mind.

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE NOT OPEN TO QUESTION AND CANNOT BE CHALLENGED Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. Likewise, whereas religion asserts that its principles are immutable and absolutely authoritative, democratic theory asserts just the opposite. The sine qua non of any democratic state is that everything political is open to question; not only specific policies and programs, but the very structure of the state itself must always be subject to challenge. Democracies are by nature inhospitable to political or intellectual stasis or certainty. Religion is fundamentally incompatible with this intellectual cornerstone of the modern democratic state. The irreconcilable distinction between democracy and religion is that, although there can be no sacrosanct principles or unquestioned truths in a democracy, no religion can exist without sacrosanct principles and unquestioned truths.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 84 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

SENSITIVE RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEBATE Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. The third characteristic identified by the narrow definition of religion reinforces these tendencies. Because religious principles are essentially nonrational and unprovable, they are insulated from many ordinary forms of political critique. Because religion concedes at the outset that it reaches policy conclusions by other means, empirical and utilitarian challenges to these policies are foreclosed. For example, it is fruitless to dispute the veracity of creationism within the intellectual frame-work of the scientific method if adherents of creationism believe in the inviolability of the story of creation set forth in Genesis. n464 It is also impossible to critique the inegalitarian implications of social or economic policies if the state may respond that it is obligated by God to enact into law the untestable commands and principles of theological doctrine.

DISCUSSION AND DEBATES HOULD BE ABOUT ISSUES THAT CAN BE CHANGED OR ALTERED Gey, Steven G. “Why is religion special?: “Reconsidering the accommodation of religion under the religion clauses of the first amendment.” [1990] 52 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 75. SM. By virtue of their attack on constitutional rationalism, the critics concede that religion is an alternative system of nonrational and unprovable beliefs. As such, religion is fundamentally incompatible with the critical rationality on which democracy depends. In a proper democracy, political truth is developed, not discovered, and it may change over time as the individual components of political truth lose their usefulness or become counterproductive to the larger social undertaking. In a religious context, on the other hand, truth is discovered, not developed, and its essential verities cannot be challenged or disproved. The adherent's disapproval of received truth in a religious scheme is an indication of the adherent's inadequate faith or devotion, rather than an indication of flaws in the governing religious concepts. A democratic system should be structured in a way that encourages the development and application of critical reason. A government that places itself in [*177] the service of nonrational and unquestionable religious principles, therefore, loses its claim to democratic legitimacy.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE IINACCESSIBLE AND NOT SHARED BY ALL Lipkin, Robert Justin. “Reconstructing the Public Square.” [2005] 24 Cardozo Law Review 2025. SM. The inaccessibility argument contends that religious arguments are insular and not open to the scrutiny of ordinary citizens. n157 The claim here is that religion represents a closed system of concepts that are idiosyncratic to a particular perspective and not necessarily shared by or even understandable by others in the community. Often the reason for the inaccessibility charge is that religious justification depends on the Bible or some other canonical text; and therefore such justifications involve doctrines unique to a particular community.

INDIVIDUALS DECIDE ABOUT RELIGIOUS ISSUES AT A YOUNG AGE – THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH THAT HAPPENS IN DEBATE WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE Lipkin, Robert Justin. “Reconstructing the Public Square.” [2005] 24 Cardozo Law Review 2025. SM. Most Americans are aware of the claims of religion from an early age, and probably have a better understanding of religious beliefs than they do of trade cycles or nuclear fission. Further, with important exceptions, most adults have decided early in their lives whether to accept the story of [*2069] faith or not. Once that commitment is made, it becomes futile and tedious to revisit these arguments again and again in public debate; and it is equally as tedious to consider arguments about social policy that rest solely on these same religious premises. n165 Although, some religious citizens seek to revive their fellow citizens' understanding of religion, it is most often wasted time and often seems intrusive. n166 The atheistic citizen similarly knows that educated, rational adults of faith are not about to jettison their faith on the basis of some atheistic argument. For most adults, these matters are settled.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 85 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

DEBATE ABOUT RELIGIOUS ISSUES IS FUTILE AS THERE OFTEN IS NO CONSENSUS Lipkin, Robert Justin. “Reconstructing the Public Square.” [2005] 24 Cardozo Law Review 2025. SM. The problem underlying the inaccessibility argument is that it distorts democratic debate. Why should such debate center around what the Bible implies, or any other book for that matter? The authority of democratic debate rests in aspiring toward a reasoned consensus, not an external document that some people, even if it is everyone, independently embrace. The inaccessibility here is not merely a descriptive fact about what people understand; rather, it is the fact that democratic authority - and the role it plays in democratic debate - is replaced with an idiosyncratic or external authority. n168 What the inaccessibility argument points to is the incongruity in democratic debate of there being external authorities that other democrats need not and often do not embrace.

THE LANGUAGE OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES IS INCOMMENSURATE Lipkin, Robert Justin. “Reconstructing the Public Square.” [2005] 24 Cardozo Law Review 2025. SM. Scenario Two: Pro Gay Position: Gays and lesbians should be permitted to marry and should be afforded all rights other citizens are afforded. Antigay Position: No. They should not. PGP: Why not? AGP: Because the Bible, the revealed Word of God, says so. How should PGP respond? How can PGP respond? PGP might deny that God or the Bible actually condemns same-sex marriage. But why should these sources of belief be relevant to the issue at hand? One answer is that other citizens believe it to be relevant and in a democracy one should consider the beliefs and arguments of fellow democrats. This is a direct and powerful reply. Its rejoinder maintains that just as one should think that the beliefs of others are relevant to arguments about coercive social policy, one should also be prepared to modify, abandon, and translate one's views into perspectives more accessible to other democrats. Each party, to be sure, should be permitted to state his or her own beliefs in a preferred language. And others should be prepared to argue in these terms. But if the languages are incommensurate, each party should be prepared to replace their preferred language with one more familiar to everyone. If not, the conversation abruptly comes to an end

EVEN RAWLS IS TROUBLED BY RELIGION IN DEBATE Dent, George W. “Religion, Morality and Democracy.” [2004] 2 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 401. SM. Rawls's equation of religious faith with "first philosophy" and "comprehensive" moral doctrines is appropriate and critical. Secularism n10 has long dismissed religion as irrational while accepting secular moral faiths as reasonable justifications in public discourse. n11 This dichotomy is indefensible. n12 Still, while a restriction on all "comprehensive doctrines" exudes an air of neutrality, its theoretical basis is dubious, and in practice it disproportionately burdens religion. Rawls's limit on comprehensive doctrine stems from his demand that public speakers offer reasons accessible to all reasonable people. Citizens of modern liberal democracies have philosophical differences that, in his view, fact and reason cannot bridge, n13 so speakers must offer "political reasons"--that is, "widely accepted, or available" arguments, "principles and guidelines we think other citizens . . . may reasonably be expected to endorse . . . ." n14 Rawls call this restriction the "method of avoidance" by which "we try, so far as we can, neither to assert nor to deny any religious, philosophical or moral views, or their associated philosophical accounts of truth and the status of values."

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 86 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

REMOVING RELIGION FROM DEBATE PROMOTES TOLERANCE Dent, George W. “Religion, Morality and Democracy.” [2004] 2 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 401. SM. Many other liberals favor limiting religion in public debate--in some cases more strictly than Rawls would. Ronald Dworkin says "the Constitution does not allow states to justify policy on grounds of religious doctrine." n16 Going a step further, Kathleen Sullivan favors "banishment of religion from the public square." n17 Richard Rorty favors exclusion of religion from public debate because "it helps make the world's inhabitants more pragmatic, more tolerant, more liberal, more receptive to the appeal of instrumental rationality."

RELIGIOUS ISSUES CANNOT BE RESOLVED Dent, George W. “Religion, Morality and Democracy.” [2004] 2 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 401. SM. Second, "the dictates of religion often extend to the religious as well as the secular conduct of persons, so that if domination occurs it undermines even religious freedom." n21 Thus, religion is uniquely divisive: "Where religious convictions are a basis of a disagreement, it is, other things being equal, less likely that the disputants can achieve resolution or even peacefully agree to disagree." n22 Accordingly, "liberal democracy must make special efforts to prevent religious domination of one group by another." n23 And citizens "should, in certain aspects of our thinking and public conduct, separate religion from law and public policy matters, especially when it comes to passing restrictive laws." n24

RELIGIOUS ISSUES SHOULD BE DEBATED WITH SECULAR VALUES Dent, George W. “Religion, Morality and Democracy.” [2004] 2 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 401. SM. Other commentators would not bar religion from public discourse but eye it [*405] with suspicion. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson sound impartial as they decry "appeal to any authority whose conclusions are impervious . . . to the standards of logical consistency or to reliable methods of inquiry that themselves should be mutually acceptable." n25 However, it is only religion that they accuse of failing this test, and they are open to excluding all religious appeals as "impervious . . . to reliable methods of inquiry." n26 Some commentators would allow religious appeals only when they embrace liberal policies. Peter Wenz, for example, says "religion may legitimately matter where the death penalty, the environment, and animals are concerned" because they entail "secular values," but he attacks antiabortion laws because "the personhood and right to life of young fetuses is a religious matter.

DEBATES ABOUT RELIGIOUS ISSUES ONLY SHARPEN DISAGREEMENT Dent, George W. “Religion, Morality and Democracy.” [2004] 2 Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 401. SM. One argument for excluding comprehensive beliefs from public debate (Rawls's method of avoidance) is that they are immutable, so that dialogue cannot resolve but only sharpen disagreement. n38 This attitude "assumes a static universe of beliefs and values and that is a clearly false assumption." n39 Individuals [*407] and even entire societies can change their fundamental beliefs, as America changed its views about slavery and racial and gender equality.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 87 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

ENGAGING IN POLICY DEBATES INSTEAD OF RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS IS MORE EDUCATIONAL Keller, Thomas E. “Student debates in policy courses: promoting policy practice skills and knowledge through active learning,” Journal of Social Work Education, Spr/Summer, EBSCOhost. SM. The purposes of this article were to examine the potential of student debates for fostering the development of policy practice knowledge and skills, to demonstrate that debates can be effectively incorporated as an in-class assignment in a policy course, and to report findings on the educational value and level of student satisfaction with debates. Based on a review of the literature, the authors' experience conducting debates in a course, and the subsequent evaluation of those debates, the authors believe the development of policy practice skills and the acquisition of substantive knowledge can be advanced through structured student debates in policy-oriented courses. The authors think debates on important policy questions have numerous benefits: prompting students to deal with values and assumptions, encouraging them to investigate and analyze competing alternatives, compelling them to advocate a particular position, and motivating them to articulate a point of view in a persuasive manner. We think engaging in these analytic and persuasive activities promotes greater knowledge by stimulating active participation in the learning process.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE POOR DEBATE TOPICS BECAUSE THERE IS NO RESEARCH BASE Shively, Ruth Lessi. 2000, Political Theory and Partisan Politics, p. 181-182. SM. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group.

DEBATING ABOUT POLICY ISSUES IS MORE EDUCATIONAL Schmidt, Fred. “Citizen Participation: An Essay on Applications of Citizen Participation to Extension Programming”, 5/8/1998, http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/nowg/cd_essay.html, 6/30/09, SM. Involvement in public decision-making is the major goal of citizen participation. According to Heberlein (1976), increasing demand for public involvement is a matter of trust in government. "Concern for participation arises almost entirely in the context of real or imagined failure of government to respond appropriately to the more competitive needs and demands of citizens..." (p. 1). Summers (1987) defines citizen participation as "the active involvement of citizens outside the electoral process in making decisions affecting their lives" (p.16). Arnstein (1969) refers to citizen participation as "a categorical term for citizen power. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future (p. 216). Clearly there is some disagreement in the literature regarding just when citizen participation includes activity in electoral process. In our work here, we side with Heberlein and Arnstein, recognizing that the implication for citizen participation in electoral process is appropriately rooted in an individual's concern for policy and, related program implementation. From an extension program perspective, an important characteristic of citizen participation is the education required in responding to concern for making appropriate policy related decisions. We will argue that it is the call for information required in selecting from among policy/program alternatives that represents the much vaulted "teachable moment" sought after by extension outreach and other adult educators.

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 88 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS ISSUES OUGHT BE EXCLUDED FROM DEBATE Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. Religious claims, these scholars argue, must be excluded or restricted because they fail to satisfy a necessary criterion for political participation. The relevant criteria differ from scholar to scholar, but common examples include public reason, public accessibility, and secular reason. For example, John Rawls has argued that advocacy and decision-making on constitutional essentials and questions of basic justice must rest upon reasons that all citizens can be reasonably expected to endorse. n10 Rawls refers to this as the ideal of public reason.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES CANNOT BE SHARED AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND REQUIRE A LEAP OF FAITH TO BE UNDERSTOOD Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. A number of scholars have followed Rawls. For example, Stephen Macedo, Amy Gutmann, and Dennis Thompson have embraced a similar view and have favored extending the concept of public reason beyond fundamental constitutional questions. n12 For these scholars, political questions more broadly should be debated and decided according to reasons that are or can be shared among fellow citizens and, thus, found mutually acceptable. n13 Religious convictions and other comprehensive philosophical or moral doctrines about truth as a whole fail the test of public reason because we can never expect all citizens to agree upon [*483] such doctrines. n14 Religious claims are especially problematic when they require others to take a leap of faith or adopt a particular religious way of life to be fully understood and appreciated. n15

RELIGIOUS INACCESSABILITY TO OUTSIDERS MAKES IT HARD TO LOGICALLY INVESTIGATE Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. A related criterion is public accessibility. If claims cannot be understood and evaluated according to shared forms of reasoning, they are not publicly accessible and restrictions apply. n16 Religious claims are, in the view of the scholars who embrace this criterion, either wholly or partly inaccessible. For example, Abner Greene suggests that religious convictions are inherently inaccessible because they refer beyond human experience "to an extrahuman source of value" n17 that is unavailable to citizens who do not take a similar leap of faith. n18 In Greene's words, "if I fail to see the light of Jesus Christ's divinity, I am stopped cold" absent a conversion. n19 Kent Greenawalt has a more nuanced understanding of religious belief. Religious convictions are not unrelated to human experience or resistant to logical analysis, n20 and some religious claims may be accessible. n21 However, where religious belief involves personal experience or intuition or a leap of faith, as it frequently does, it is often not fully accessible to outsiders. n22 Both Greenawalt and Greene would place restrictions on the role of religion in politics.

ARGUMENTS SHOULD HAVE SECULAR JUSTIFICATIONS TO BE ADOPTED Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. Another familiar criteria is secular reason. For example, Robert Audi has argued that citizens should not support or advocate laws that restrict human conduct unless they have and are willing to offer an "adequate secular reason" that motivates them even apart from their religious beliefs. n24 In Religion in Politics, Michael Perry makes a similar proposal that would apply to decisions to restrict human conduct on the ground that the conduct is immoral. Where such choices are involved, citizens should not rely on religious arguments about the requirements of human well-being unless they believe that a persuasive secular argument reaches the same conclusion. n25

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 89 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

DEBATING RELIGION UNDERMINES AUTONOMY SINCE IT ASKS NONBELIEVERS TO BE PART OF SOMETHING THEY DO NOT ENDORSE Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. The reasons that scholars give for limiting the role of religion in politics overlap substantially. For example, scholars argue that mutual respect and fairness require restraint. Citizens in a liberal democracy characterized by religious and moral pluralism show each other respect when they discuss and decide political questions on the basis of premises or modes of reasoning that are shared or at least intelligible and accessible to all. n26 Fairness also requires the use of standards that can appeal to believers and nonbelievers alike. Citizens are not treated fairly when only some can meaningfully participate in political debate and decision-making that binds them [*485] all. n27 In addition, the liberal commitment to human autonomy is undermined when rational and informed citizens are subject to coercive laws for reasons that they do not find persuasive.

RELIGIOUS ISSUES PRODUCE DIVISIVENESS AND STRIFE Brady, Kathleen A. “God, the person, history, and the law: Themes from the work of Judge John T. Noonan, Jr.” [2003] 1 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 480. SM. Scholars also argue that religious participation in politics threatens to produce divisiveness and strife. When political debate and decision-making draw upon religious norms that are not widely shared or accessible, nonbelievers will feel resentment and alienation. n29 Resentment and frustration are also natural reactions when individuals are coerced by laws that they do not find persuasive. n30 The consequence is social and political instability. n31 Moreover, the zeal with which religious believers advance their positions and the tenacity of their commitments are especially dangerous in a religiously diverse environment. n32 Disagreements between believer and nonbeliever and among believers become a "clash of Gods vying for social control." n33 For William Marshall, religion has a "dark side" that is "inherently intolerant and persecutory." n34 A fanatical devotion to the religious cause, a tendency to see opponents as "aligned with the 'powers of chaos,'" and "fervent beliefs fueled by ... fear" threaten to transform the public square into a "battleground" characterized by "intolerance, repression, hate, and persecution."

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 90 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

CON EVIDENCE

REFUSING TO CONFRONT RELIGION HURTS SOCIETY Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “Can There Be a Science of Good and Evil?” October 3, 2010.

It should concern us that these two orientations are not equally empowering. Increasingly, secular democracies are left supine before the unreasoning zeal of old-time religion. The juxtaposition of conservative dogmatism and liberal doubt accounts for the decade that has been lost in the United States to a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research; it explains the years of political distraction we have suffered, and will continue to suffer, over issues like abortion and gay marriage; it lies at the bottom of current efforts to pass anti-blasphemy laws at the United Nations (which would make it illegal for the citizens of member states to criticize religion); it has hobbled the West in its generational war against radical Islam; and it may yet refashion the societies of Europe into a new Caliphate. Knowing what the Creator of the Universe believes about right and wrong inspires religious conservatives to enforce this vision in the public sphere at almost any cost; not knowing what is right -- or that anything can ever be truly right -- often leads secular liberals to surrender their intellectual standards and political freedoms with both hands. (JL)

WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO CRITICIZE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “Can There Be a Science of Good and Evil?” October 3, 2010.

If we were to discover a new tribe in the Amazon tomorrow, there is not a scientist alive who would assume a priori that these people must enjoy optimal physical health and material prosperity. Rather, we would ask questions about this tribe's average lifespan, daily calorie intake, the percentage of women dying in childbirth, the prevalence of infectious disease, the presence of material culture, etc. Such questions would have answers, and they would likely reveal that life in the Stone Age entails a few compromises. And yet news that these jolly people enjoy sacrificing their firstborn children to imaginary gods would prompt many (even most) anthropologists to say that this tribe was in possession of an alternate moral code, every bit as valid and impervious to refutation as our own. However, the moment one draws the link between morality and human well-being, one sees that this is tantamount to saying that the members of this tribe must be as fulfilled, psychologically and socially, as any people in human history. The disparity between how we think about physical health and mental/societal health reveals a bizarre double standard: one that is predicated on our not knowing -- or, rather, on our pretending not to know -- anything at all about human flourishing. (JL)

RELIGION OFFERS A FALSE MORAL FRAMEWORK Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “The Science of Good and Evil.” The Daily Beast, October 2, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-02/sam-harris-on-the-moral-landscape/2/ JL.

The framework of a moral landscape guarantees that many people will have flawed conceptions of morality, just as many people have flawed conceptions of physics. Consider the Catholic Church: an organization that advertises itself as greatest force for good and as the only true bulwark against evil in the universe. Even among non-Catholics, its doctrines are widely associated with the concepts of “morality” and “human values.” However, the church is an organization that excommunicates women for 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 91 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

attempting to become priests but does not excommunicate male priests for raping children. It excommunicates doctors who perform abortions to save a motherʼs life—even if the mother is a 9-year- old girl raped by her stepfather and pregnant with twins—but it did not excommunicate a single member of the Third Reich for committing genocide. (It excommunicated Joseph Goebbels, but this was for the high crime of marrying a Protestant.) This is an organization that is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. Are we really obliged to consider such a diabolical inversion of priorities to be evidence of an alternative “moral” framework? No. I think it is clear that the church is as misguided in speaking about the “moral” peril of contraception, for instance, as it would be in speaking about the “physics” of Transubstantiation. In both domains, it true to say that the church is grotesquely confused about which things in this world are worth paying attention to. The church is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one. (JL)

REFUSING TO DISCUSS MODERATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHELTERS FUNDAMENTALISM Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “Godʼs Dupes.” Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2007.

Of course, no religion is monolithic. Within every faith one can see people arranged along a spectrum of belief. Picture concentric circles of diminishing reasonableness: At the center, one finds the truest of true believers — the Muslim jihadis, for instance, who not only support suicidal terrorism but who are the first to turn themselves into bombs; or the Dominionist Christians, who openly call for homosexuals and blasphemers to be put to death. Outside this sphere of maniacs, one finds millions more who share their views but lack their zeal. Beyond them, one encounters pious multitudes who respect the beliefs of their more deranged brethren but who disagree with them on small points of doctrine — of course the world is going to end in glory and Jesus will appear in the sky like a superhero, but we canʼt be sure it will happen in our lifetime. Out further still, one meets religious moderates and liberals of diverse hues — people who remain supportive of the basic scheme that has balkanized our world into Christians, Muslims and Jews, but who are less willing to profess certainty about any article of faith. Is Jesus really the son of God? Will we all meet our grannies again in heaven? Moderates and liberals are none too sure. Those on this spectrum view the people further toward the center as too rigid, dogmatic and hostile to doubt, and they generally view those outside as corrupted by sin, weak-willed or unchurched. The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvinʼs Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who arenʼt sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 92 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE JUSTIFIES SEXISM Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “Godʼs Hostages.” Washington Post, January 22, 2007.

For millennia, the worldʼs great prophets and theologians have applied their collective genius to the riddle of womanhood. The result has been polygamy, sati, honor killing, punitive rape, genital mutilation, forced marriages, a cultic obsession with virginity, compulsory veiling, the persecution of unwed mothers, and other forms of physical and psychological abuse so kaleidoscopic in variety as to scarcely admit of concise description. Some of this sexist evil probably predates religion and can be ascribed to our biology, but there is no question that religion promulgates and renders sacrosanct attitudes toward women that would be unseemly in a brachiating ape. While man was made in the image of God, the prevailing view under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that woman was made in the image of man. Her humanity, therefore, is derivative, contingent, ersatz (Gen: 2-21-22 Koran 4:1; 39.6; 7.189). Of all the animals, woman was the last to be made but the first to sin (Gen 3:12). The Old Testament puts the monetary value of a womanʼs life at one-half to two-thirds that of a manʼs (Leviticus 27). The Koran elaborates: it requires the testimony of two women to offset that of one man (2:282) and every girl deserves exactly one-half her brotherʼs share of inheritance (4:11). God suggests in his tenth commandment that the woman next door is your neighborʼs material possession which, along with his house, slaves and oxen, must not be coveted (Exodus 20:17); Deuteronomy 5:21). (JL)

CONFRONTING RELIGION SOLVES THE ROOT CAUSE OF SEXISM Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “Godʼs Hostages.” Washington Post, January 22, 2007. JL

The net effect of religion (especially in the Abrahamic tradition) has been to demonize female sexuality and portray women as morally and intellectually inferior to men. Every woman holds the dignity of men for ransom, and is liable to tarnish it with a glance, or destroy it outright through sexual indiscretion. From this perspective, rape is a crime that one man commits against the honor of another; the woman is merely Shameʼs vehicle, and often culpably acquiescent—being all blandishments and guile and winking treachery. According to God, if the victim of a rape neglects to scream loudly enough, she should be stoned to death as an accessory to her own defilement (Deuteronomy 22:24). Every manʼs daughter is a potential whore liable to grow drunk on the blood of good men—a Delilah, a Jezebel, a Salome. Every girl, therefore, must be mastered and locked away before she can succumb to the evil that is her all-too- natural enthusiasm. According to God, women have been placed on earth to service men, to bear their children, to the keep their homes in order, and above all to not betray them by becoming the object of another manʼs sexual enjoyment. And so it falls to every man to shield his women from the predations of his rapacious brothers and oblige them, until death or decrepitude, to fulfill their most sacred purpose—as incubators of sons. If we ever achieve a civilization of true equity, respect, and love between the sexes, it will not be because we paid more attention to our holy books. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 93 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

FOCUS ON THE FACTS HELPS TO MITIGATE CONTROVERSIES Oulton, Christopher and Vanessa Day, Justin Dillon, and Marcus Grace. University of Gloucestershire, University College Worcester, Kingʼs College, University of Southampton, UK. “Controversial Issues: Teachersʼ Attitudes and Practices in the Context of Citizenship Education.” Oxford Review of Education 30.4, 2004. Pp. 489-507.

For some teachers, notably but not exclusively the secondary science teachers, the potential pitfalls in teaching controversial issues can be avoided by 'sticking to the facts'. We were interested that, whilst not all teachers expressed this opinion, no one in the group raised the question of what constitutes a 'fact' or offered the view that the issue is controversial because different groups perceive the 'facts' differently. An exploration of the extent to which a wider population of teachers view 'sticking to the facts' as a useful strategy seemed to us important and was therefore included in the questionnaire that followed up on issues from the focus groups. The literature suggests that pupils need knowledge and skills in order to be able to make informed decisions about their lives. The extent to which it may be considered appropriate to plan for learning outcomes, which go beyond the acquisition of knowledge and skills to include influencing pupils, values and actions, is open to debate. For some teachers, knowledge was seen as the key. (JL)

ADOPTING A BALANCED PERSPECTIVE HELPS TO MITIGATE CONTROVERSIES Oulton, Christopher and Vanessa Day, Justin Dillon, and Marcus Grace. University of Gloucestershire, University College Worcester, Kingʼs College, University of Southampton, UK. “Controversial Issues: Teachersʼ Attitudes and Practices in the Context of Citizenship Education.” Oxford Review of Education 30.4, 2004. Pp. 489-507.

Almost all teachers referred to the need for teaching to be balanced. Teachers suggested that the main reason for providing a balanced experience is to allow pupils to access a range of opinions so that they can make up their own mind about the topic. When pupils all have more or less the same opinion, in order to maintain balance, some teachers employ strategies, such as playing Devil's Advocate, to provide alternative opinions or viewpoints. (JL)

BEING RESPECTFUL IS THE KEY TO TEACHING CONTROVERSY Soley, Mary. Senior Program Officer in the Education and Training Division, US Institute of Peace. “If Itʼs Controversial, Why Teach It?” Social Education 60.1, 1996.

Helping students learn certain values can be accomplished in two ways. One way, of course, is to engage students in a discussion of values in the context of teaching about issues and people that are controversial. There will be numerous opportunities for students to talk about their own views of the values being explored. A second way involves creating and maintaining the kind of classroom environment where certain values are promoted and protected. For example, a classroom designed to teach students to respect each other's views is one where students share with adults in the process of making decisions that affect the school community; rules exist and are abided by that promote the management of conflicts without the use of verbal or physical abuse; students learn the skills of active listening and the habits of engaging in civil discourse with one another; and, students feel free and safe to take risks, question one another, and feel cared for. (JL)

REFUSING TO DISCUSS CONTROVERSY BECAUSE OF DISCOMFORT IS ANTITHETICAL TO CRITICAL THINKING The University of Queensland, Australia. “Inclusive Practices for Managing Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/cdip/pdfs/strategy_manageControversy.pdf

Students can also resist dealing with controversy because they believe that it is important that group members feel comfortable. Students tend not to discriminate between feeling comfortable and being in an environment with trustworthy staff where it is safe to feel uncomfortable. Because students are now likely to see themselves as consumers, they tend to believe that teachers should not make them feel 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 94 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

uncomfortable or to participate more than they think is reasonable (Howard and Baird, 2000). Being comfortable, however, is antithetical to grappling with new ideas, listening to opposing views, having someone argue with cherished beliefs. Students who see themselves as part of the dominant culture are likely to be resistant to course material which questions existing power relations and privilege. Resistance is seen by Hedley and Markowitz , (2001:195) as arising because students: (1) tend to reduce moral analysis by dividing it into only two sides or opinions (dichotomous reductionism); and (2) misconstrue empirical and theoretical information provided in class as moral argument (as may happen in the scientific field). (JL)

OPT-IN POLICY SOLVES FOR ANGRY PARENTS WITHOUT TAINTING DEBATE Burron, Arnold. Professor at University of Northern Colorado. “Controversial Issues: They Belong in the Classroom.” Education Policy Center Issue Backgrounder, April 2006.

To be sure, criticism by constituents is the main reason why public schools have not adopted “controversial issues” curricula. But criticism is not inevitable. In fact, with two simple acts of leadership, even the most volatile issues can be discussed in any school without evoking community backlash. Besides the simple process of showing teachers how to teach the Issues Analysis procedure, which can be used in any subject-matter discipline, a second proactive measure is highly desirable. It makes good sense to go the extra mile to avoid unnecessary hostility and to honor the values and sensitivities of all constituents. Therefore, eliminate current “opt-out” policies which require parents to request permission to have their children excused from participation in certain activities, and in their place, establish an “opt-in” process. School administrators have resisted such a measure, because itʼs a time-consuming policy. But it is a lot less stress-evoking than having to respond to a media bombardment, so itʼs worth the time. An “opt-in” communication to parents should include powerfully persuasive arguments thatexplain how a specific Issues Analysis topic will enhance their childrenʼs education and their critical reading/thinking abilities. Parents should also be explicitly apprised of the schoolʼs commitment to fairness and objectivity in presenting controversial topics. But if parents choose not to “opt in,” administrators should honor their choice. A more productive and safe teaching and learning atmosphere will be the result of providing for freedom of choice. (JL)

SCHEMPP HELD THAT DISCUSSING RELIGION IS UNQUESTIONABLY CONSTITUTIONAL Rogers, Melissa. Executive Director, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, First Amendment Center Speech. May 21, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-discussion1.pdf

I want to talk a bit about the federal constitutional background for these issues. As you know, many of these issues are not legal in nature. They are about education policy, they are about whatʼs wise, whatʼs feasible. But the Constitution, as Charles mentioned, certainly does set parameters for this discussion, and its spirit animates the discussion. So I want to start there, and Iʼll start where Charles began, with the Schempp decision, because we all go back to that language from Justice Clarkʼs decision, talking about how you can teach about religion in an academic fashion in the public schools. When I went back and reread the decision recently, I noticed that the Court majority was trying to rebut this charge that, by taking devotional practices out of the public schools, they would establish a religion of secularism and a hostility toward religion. So the Court clarified that while a school canʼt do certain things that are devotional in nature, it can inculcate an understanding of religion that doesnʼt press for acceptance of particular religious beliefs and worship and the like, but does press for a greater understanding of the role religion plays in our shared lives together as Americans. It wasnʼt only Justice Clarkʼs opinion that talked about this. Concurring opinions discussed the non-devotional use of the Bible in public schools and emphasized that the holding didnʼt foreclose teaching about the Bible or about differences in religions in literature classes or history classes. These are the comments that have launched us on many of the discussions that Charles mentioned. These and other cases make clear that it is certainly constitutionally permissible to teach about religion in an academic way in the public schools. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 95 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

SCHOOL OFFICIALS SHOULDNʼT BE AFRAID – COURT AND PUBLIC OPINION IS ON THEIR SIDE Nielsen, Neils. Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University. “Teaching About Religion: A Middle Way For Schools.” Christian Century, January 4-11 1984. http://www.religion- online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1361

If one listens to superintendents and other school officials, it is clear that they have become generally more defensive. Many of them see themselves as caught between fundamentalists on the one hand and antireligious people on the other. Religion in public education seems to them to be explosively controversial. Most of all, they fear litigation. In reaction to fundamentalism, many administrators intentionally avoid any mention of religion in the public-school setting -- an unhappy educational situation, to say the least. In the face of threats from both the left and the right, they wish to continue its omission from the curriculum. School officials who earlier were willing to speak out for at least some form of teaching about religion now retreat into silence despite the Supreme Courtʼs explicit encouragement. Even so, such people are often accused of having a “hidden religious agenda” because of the remnants of the Hebrew-Christian tradition in the schoolsʼ religious values, holidays and customs. By contrast, public opinion seems to favor more, not less, religion in the schools. School superintendents are agents of their school boards, hired to carry out board policy and wishes -- and this leads to dilemmas. If they are insubordinate, they are subject to dismissal. School boards often reflect that portion of popular opinion which is uncritically proreligion and wishes religion and/or its values to be recognized in the curriculum. Prayers are still said in more schools than might be expected. But when threatened with litigation, some local boards retreat and relent, to the dismay of their constituencies. (JL)

SUPREME AND LOWER COURT OPINIONS SAY SCHOOLS CAN DISCUSS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES Cook, Kay. “Controversial Issues: Concerns for Policymakers.” ERIC Digest No. 14, 1984. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-921/policy.htm

The Supreme Court and lower courts tend to uphold the rights of teachers and of students to engage in controversial topics both in curricular and extracurricular activities. Supreme Court Decisions: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968): The court addressed the Arkansas law prohibiting instruction in evolutionary theory and decided that "states may not use the public school curriculum to promote a religious view, although states normally have full authority to set curriculum requirements." Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969): The Court upheld the right of the Tinkers (brother and sister students) to wear armbands in protest of the Vietnam war and the right of students, in general, to express their views on controversial subjects "in the right place and manner." The Court envisioned the public high school as "a place for free and open discussion of ideas among teachers and students." Papish v. Board of Curators (1973): "The Court extended protection under the free speech clause to student editors of a university newspaper." Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free District No. 26 v. Pico (1982): The Court ruled that the school board must go to trial to show that it had a valid purpose in withdrawing books from its school libraries. Lower Court Decisions: Recently, lower courts have ruled that a school board could not remove a film, "The Lottery," from its curriculum; ordered a school committee in Maine to lift its ban on Glasser's book about Vietnam, 365 DAYS; voided a 1981 Arkansas law requiring equal time for instruction in creationism; and approved sex education programs in New Jersey with the limitation that individual children could be excused where the family raised objections based on "sincerely held moral and religious beliefs" (Lines 1983). However, Hirsh and Kemerer argue that because "the 11 federal courts of appeals have not been consistent, the legal status of academic freedom in the classroom varies geographically" (1982). (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 96 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TEACHING CONTROVERSIES HELPS TO TEACH VALUE DIFFERENCES Soley, Mary. Senior Program Officer in the Education and Training Division, US Institute of Peace. “If Itʼs Controversial, Why Teach It?” Social Education 60.1, 1996.

Subjects are controversial, in part, because they address basic questions of identity and worth-who am I (or who are we), how should we judge others, and how should we judge ourselves? These questions are highly subjective and depend, to a great extent, on one's view of the world and one's values. Values are the lenses through which events and knowledge are interpreted and transmitted. It is impossible to learn about the reality and drama of the past, present, and future without understanding the role played by values. Teaching about issues that are controversial is a responsible and appropriate way for students to learn about values and to study value conflicts. It is also a responsible and appropriate way to teach students to prize certain values and behave in ways that reflect these values. (JL)

DISCUSSING CONTROVERSIES HELPS TEACH THE LIMITS OF ONEʼS PERSPECTIVE Soley, Mary. Senior Program Officer in the Education and Training Division, US Institute of Peace. “If Itʼs Controversial, Why Teach It?” Social Education 60.1, 1996.

Teaching about issues that are controversial provides today's students with opportunities to understand the factors that influence how perspectives are developed and how knowledge is constructed. James A. Banks, a leader in the field of multicultural education, points out: The knowledge construction process encompasses the procedures by which social, behavioral, and natural scientists create knowledge in their disciplines. A multi-cultural focus on knowledge construction includes discussion of the ways in which the implicit cultural assumptions, frames of reference, perspectives, and biases within a discipline influence the construction of knowledge. ... Teachers help students to understand how knowledge is created and how it is influenced by factors of race, ethnicity, gender, and social class. (Banks 1993) While an understanding of another's worldview, and how that perspective has been "constructed," may not lead to an appreciation of differences, it is important that students learn to think carefully about their own perspective, how the perspectives of others are different, and how one's perspective is shaped by many different factors. Teaching about controversial issues in the classroom can provide a safe place for students to ask questions, express their fears, learn how to listen to one another, and deal with the difficult topics of pluralism, creation of a common civic culture, and the benefits and challenges of living productively in an increasingly multicultural society. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 97 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

REFUSING TO DISCUSS RELIGION CEDES THE BATTLE TO FUNDAMENTALISTS Nielsen, Neils. Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University. “Teaching About Religion: A Middle Way For Schools.” Christian Century, January 4-11 1984. http://www.religion- online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1361

Teaching about religion is not just a way of avoiding issues. It is necessary to say and to know what religion, Christianity included, has been and done historically in order to talk about it responsibly. There is a legitimate place, therefore, for teaching about Judaism and Christianity, as well as other world religions, in public education. Curriculum strategies for such teaching deserve support from religious institutions and agencies even though they cannot sponsor them directly. Religion in the public-school classroom need not be as divisive as critics of the religious right allege. How the national religious ethos has developed since the courtʼs 1963 decision was a first consideration for both the Baylor and Indianapolis meetings. Harvey Cox put the matter in perspective at the beginning of the Indiana colloquium. The Schempp- Murray decisions were made in the era of the death-of-God theology, when, moreover, religion was viewed increasingly as a private matter. Today, both trends have been reversed. Whatever else may be said about the American cultural scene, religion is not in decline today. Children who do not hear about God from their parents learn about God from television. Media religious programs usually reflect the popular, often fundamentalist interest in religion. Right-wing groups are becoming known for interest in social concerns that serve their own needs. Even for fundamentalists, religion is no longer simply a private matter. The religious New Right has taken a very vocal interest in education, charging that the public schools in particular are permeated with secular humanism. Like school officials, the majority of pastors in mainline denominations have done little apart from making general policy pronouncements. No one in the power structures of education seems to be working effectively to find an appropriate place for religion. It is not difficult for religious groups to join with secular agencies like the ACLU in opposing fundamentalism, scientific creationism and school prayer. But positive strategies that would take religion out of quarantine in public education are another matter. The field is left to the fundamentalists, who derive much of their following from an outspoken reaction against secularism. The issue of religion in public education has fallen largely into their hands. Never mind that they often confuse the private and public worlds, placing the Bible above and outside of history, as Samuel S. Hill and Dennis E. Owen point out in their excellent study The New Political Religious Right in America (Abingdon, 1982). Fundamentalist leaders attract large followings, in part, presumably, because of their easy answers. But it may also be because others have defaulted on this crucial issue. (JL)

DISCUSSING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IMPROVES TOLERANCE Ohio Department of Education. “The Evidence Base for Social Studies: Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ode/ims/rrt/research/Content/controversial_issues_what_we_know.asp

Amy Gutmann identifies the classroom as a powerful place to promote rational deliberations of competing conceptions of the good life and the good society (Hess 2004). Hess and Posselt describe the positive effects of democracy education which includes an open climate for discussion and self-expression in the classroom (2002, p. 288). In another report, Hess finds that schools are best suited for discussion of controversial issues when they contain more ideological diversity than anywhere else in studentsʼ lives (2004). Weighing in on this issue, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, call for a revamping of what students in elementary and secondary schools are taught about the nature of democracy and democratic participation (Hess 2004). Hibbing and Theiss-Morse wish to promote a curriculum with hotly debated political issues in order to teach students that controversy is not an unfortunate by product of democracy but one of its core and vital elements. As a result of discussing controversial issues in the classroom, students score higher on measures of political efficacy and show positive correlations with following current events in media and discussing political matters with family and friends (Harwood and Hahn 1999). (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 98 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

WE MUST STUDY RELIGION TO DEFUSE RELIGIOUS CONFLICT AND BIGOTRY Ronk, Thom. Multicultural educator with 20 years of experience. “Taking a Closer Look at Religions Around the World.” Southern Poverty Law Center, September 2, 2009. http://www.tolerance.org/blog/taking-closer-look-religions-around-world

When I reflect on the incidents last week involving students who wore offensive shirts with anti-Muslim statements on them in Gainesville, Florida, I cannot help but to think of Jonathan Swiftʼs quote, “We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” I donʼt agree with Swift, though. All we have to do is observe how no local company in Gainesville, Florida would agree to print the T-shirts. Living and traveling in many countries around the world, my firsthand experiences—of residing within other cultures and with people of different value systems—have given me a deep awareness of the essential need to understand world religions. Taking a quick look at history, we notice that many “conflicts” have come from disparities between religions and throughout the world today disputes still exist stemming from different religious beliefs. Even now, itʼs hard not to notice a lack of awareness and respect for all religions. Ever wonder why these misunderstandings arise? What makes for this deep-seated discord? Where do the tensions come from historically, geographically and politically? What aspects of peopleʼs beliefs cause these controversies? A quote I do agree with is Mohandas K. Gandhiʼs, “A friendly study of the world's religions is a sacred duty.” (JL)

PUBLIC SCHOOLS MUST DO MORE TO ENCOURAGE RESPECT FOR RELIGION Lester, Emile and Roberts, Patrick. Professor of Government at William and Mary; Postdoctoral fellow at Stanford. “Learning About World Religions in Public Schools.” First Amendment Center, 2006. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstForum_ModestoWorldReligions.pdf

Members of our society with firmly held and differing views on religion cannot hope to agree on all values. They can, however, agree to cultivate mutual respect. The American religious tradition requires that each citizen respect the rights of other citizens to practice their religious faiths, at least until a believerʼs requirements violates other basic rights and freedoms. Full respect for the rights of believers requires at least a basic education in the complexity of a religious tradition. Increasing understanding through education is also the best practical means to increase mutual respect, as countless studies have shown. The public schools are the logical place for such education because attitudes about religious rights and liberties are formed early in life. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 99 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

MODESTO, CALIFORNIA PROVES THAT RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS SOLVES Lester, Emile and Roberts, Patrick. Professor of Government at William and Mary; Postdoctoral fellow at Stanford. “Learning About World Religions in Public Schools.” First Amendment Center, 2006. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstForum_ModestoWorldReligions.pdf

The Modesto City school district took a substantial risk by implementing an innovative required course focusing exclusively on world religions and explicitly linked learning about these religions to respect for religious freedom. Our research suggests many school districts reject inserting a robust discussion of religion into classrooms because of concern about practical problems such as teacher bias and fear of legal controversy. Our research suggests that Modestoʼs bold approach to teaching respect for religious diversity by requiring all students to take a course on world religions was worth the risk. The course had a positive impact not only on studentsʼ respect for the rights of other religions and their willingness to act on behalf of vulnerable religious minorities, but on studentsʼ respect for First Amendment and political rights in general. Studentsʼ knowledge about the religious traditions of their fellow students and citizens increased significantly; most students found the course material interesting; and many students expressed a desire to learn even more about world religions. The increase in studentsʼ willingness to take action to protest insults based on religion at school and the lessening of discomfort experienced by students provide evidence that the course has made Modesto schools safer and more comfortable for members of all religions. The improvements in studentsʼ knowledge about religions and religious liberty, and their increased willingness to learn more about Muslims suggest the positive civic effects of Modestoʼs course. (JL)

MODESTO PROVES THAT BALANCE IS POSSIBLE Lester, Emile and Roberts, Patrick. Professor of Government at William and Mary; Postdoctoral fellow at Stanford. “Learning About World Religions in Public Schools.” First Amendment Center, 2006. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstForum_ModestoWorldReligions.pdf

Modestoʼs course was able to accomplish these goals without causing the problems feared by those who object to extended discussion of religion in schools. Most notably, the course did not encourage students who were not already predisposed to change their religious beliefs or abandon religion altogether. Students increased their appreciation for the similarity of the moral foundations of the major world religions without concluding that the differences between religions are negligible or that choices about religion are arbitrary whims. Indeed, the interviews provide more examples of studentsʼ faith being reinvigorated by taking the course than of the enervation or abandonment of faith. The avoidance of relativistic conclusions is probably attributable in large part to the courseʼs historical rather than comparative approach to world religions. Although there is room for improvement regarding the neutral treatment of the courseʼs different religions, most students did not complain about biased treatment of religion by their teachers. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 100 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

AMERICA IS NOT A SECULAR COUNTRY Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf

The difficulty, as we know here in 2003, is that something went wrong with the secularization thesis. Secularization simply didnʼt triumph, certainly not in the United States. And if it triumphed in Europe, this happened not quite in the ways that European religious and intellectual leaders believed it would happen. And it probably didnʼt triumph in the rest of the world either. If we want some testimony to that, we have to understand that in the United States, even with the privacy of a Gallup poll taker, somewhere between 97 and 99 percent of all Americans polled over the last half century have said that they believe in God, in some kind of supernatural force, some kind of supernatural being. Fifty-five to 65 percent of Americans since the mid-1950s attach themselves in regular ways to religious organizations – a synagogue, a church and, now, many more varieties of religious organizations altogether. (JL)

EVEN TODAY MANY AMERICANS HARBOR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf

If there has been a slight downturn in that from the 1960s, the turn is only slight, and can oftentimes be accounted for by a variety of statistical anomalies because these kinds of figures actually are difficult to come by. One of the interesting characteristics of our own society, most denominational leaders will tell you in secret, is that we live in a society where, for the last 15 to 20 years, more people actually claim to be members of congregations of any kind than is in fact demonstrably true. Probably somewhere around 75 to 80 percent of American adults will claim some kind of religious affiliation. But when you pull together all the denominational statistics, only 55 to 65 percent of adults actually can be found as registered congregational members. Weʼre missing 10 to 15 percent of all these people who claim they have some kind of formal religious affiliation. (JL)

WE MUST UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION IN MODERN LIFE Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching bout Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf

Indeed, religion is generally most commonly present in those sections of history textbooks that deal with societies before 1800. Religion is treated as an antique phenomenon, something that people used to do. The Puritans did it. The Romans did it. Medieval Christians did it. Ancient Hindus did it. Mohammad did it, Buddha did it. All a long time ago. Religion, then, is literally a historical phenomenon. It is the one aspect of life that falls away when we talk about modern societies. There are economies in the treatment of the Roman Empire, there are politics in the treatment of the Roman Empire, there are technologies in the treatment of the Roman Empire, and there is religion in the treatment of the Roman Empire. But when we modernize the Roman Empire, or modernize Latin America, or modernize Africa or modernize the Middle East – well, with the exception of the Middle East – we donʼt have much on religion. Religion usually disappears some time in the 19th century and then almost completely vanishes by the 20th century. What, then, is our task? Our task, I want to suggest, is to take seriously religion as the complex, contingent, often powerful phenomenon in human affairs, ancient and modern alike, whose comprehension as an intellectual curiosity is vital to understanding the world in which we live, the world which we came from, and the world we are going to inhabit. Whether we like it or not, whether we appreciate it or not, religion is a phenomenon we must deal with. And we must deal with it intellectually as well as politically. We have to deal with it in the curriculum because it is a constituent part of modern life. (JL) 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 101 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

VALUES, ESPECIALLY RELIGIOUS, REST AT THE HEART OF POLITICAL ISSUES Soley, Mary. Senior Program Officer in the Education and Training Division, US Institute of Peace. “If Itʼs Controversial, Why Teach It?” Social Education 60.1, 1996.

Teaching about controversial issues also involves teaching about values. What is cherished in a society drives human behavior, and because questions of what and whose values are at the heart of conflicts, they play an instrumental role in understanding causes and possible resolutions. Therefore, teaching about controversial issues involves making judgments, for citizens ultimately become advocates. The goal is to inform the decisions that eventually must be made, whether the issue is the future of affirmative action or how the U.S. should act to assist the peace process in the Middle East. These realities, and the accompanying demands on the citizenry, require that social studies educators make special and continual efforts to help students understand the roots of conflicts and learn about ways to manage them constructively. (JL)

RELIGIOUS ISSUES ARE AT THE HEART OF WORLD CONFLICTS Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf JL

The rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism has transfixed the Middle East and world politics. Aggressive Christian proselytizing for the past century has transformed the national culture and societies of Africa, of Asia and of Latin America. In India, increased, not decreased, religious tension divides its many religions. At the personal level, itʼs important to remember how in villages and cities and towns across the United States, down into Mexico, throughout Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, Asia, Australia, men and women by enormous numbers live their lives through codes they will deem to be religious, that they deem have a connection to a larger sense of purpose, to a belief in transcendence, or depending upon their own views, to a belief in something called God. And their views reflect the primary ways scholars conceptualize religion––beliefs linked to ideas about the divine, the transcendent, and the purposeful. (JL)

RELIGIOUS VALUES PRODUCE CONFLICTS Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf

Religious values thus can provide difficulties for society. Religion, gives rise to enormous conflicts, not just in Salem, where it cost 19 men and women their lives, but in the modern world. And those conflicts can be particularly intractable, precisely because they are religious conflicts. Why? Because unlike economic conflicts, unlike nationalistic conflicts, religious conflicts appeal to something that most of those other conflicts donʼt – to a sense of the transcendent, a sense of the divine, a sense of the allknowing purpose, a sense of that which is eternal. It isnʼt just the interest of the United States, in short, or the interest of Canada or the interest of Saudi Arabia that might be at stake, although those can arouse plenty of passion on their own. It now becomes the interest of Christianity, or the interest of Judaism, or the interest of Islam, or the interest of Hinduism, and one can keep going for all the religions that there are. Religion has a way of deepening and making other kinds of conflicts that occur in the world all the time more difficult. Think of equivalents for Salem's witchcraft episodes in our subsequent history – the controversies in Boston over the teaching of religion and the reading of Bible verses in Boston in the 1820s, ʼ30s and ʼ40s, struggles between Protestants and Catholics that led to the burning of the Ursuline convent in Boston, to John Brownʼs apocalypticism and his dreams of the end of slavery. Or think of the conflicts within American Catholicism over birth control, abortion, or the possibility of women priests. Or the conflicts not only among the three major branches of Judaism but within each one of those branches about women's ordinations or about the dietary laws. These are realities, and they are important precisely to men and women who participate in them because they are religious. (JL) 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 102 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

RELIGIOUS IGNORANCE KILLS Haynes, Charles. Senior Scholar, First Amendment Center. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools.” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, First Amendment Center Speech. May 21, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-discussion1.pdf

Why is this important? Why should we ensure that public schools deal with religion in the curriculum? If we couldnʼt answer these questions before September 11, 2001, perhaps we can now. You may recall that three people were killed in this country after these tragic events outside this window [at the Pentagon], and in New York. Three people were killed. And as far as I can tell, the only reason they were murdered was because they looked like they were Muslims. And the irony – the tragic, awful irony – is that only one was actually a Muslim. Another was a Coptic Christian and the third was a Sikh. And thatʼs a stark reminder of the cost of ignorance. It may be the most extreme example, but it serves as a warning. Many Americans donʼt even know who is here – what kind of nation we have become. We donʼt know what many of our fellow citizens believe or practice. And in times of crisis and stress, that ignorance comes to the surface – sometimes in dangerous and destructive ways. All three of the people killed had one thing in common: They were all Americans. And if I have any agenda in “teaching about religion,” itʼs the agenda of ensuring that the American people have some understanding of the many faiths and cultures that shape the life of our nation – and the world. The future of the United States depends, in part at least, on our ability to live with our deep differences – and to find ways to work together for the common good. And I donʼt see how we can do that unless we learn about one another, understand one another, and engage one another as Americans across our differences. (JL)

CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSIONS ARE INEVITABLE The University of Queensland, Australia. “Inclusive Practices for Managing Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/cdip/pdfs/strategy_manageControversy.pdf

Controversial issues may be included strategically as part of a teaching plan to help students to achieve desired learning outcomes. They may be used to raise the complexity of an issue about which students may believe there is only one perspective. They are an inevitable part of some teaching and learning, such as the discussion of ethical issues and religious beliefs. With an increasingly diverse student body it is impossible to know what backgrounds students have before we meet them. It is important to anticipate and plan for controversy, but unlikely that we can anticipate it all. Teachers may anticipate that some issues may evoke cross-cultural controversy, for example the discussion of sex education in a child development class. At other times the issue, for example the history/politics of the 1980s wars in the Balkan states or the invasion of Iraq in 2003, may be highly controversial in a class of students including refugees from either side of the conflict or who have different religious/political affiliations, but entirely uncontroversial in a class of Australian-born school-leavers. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 103 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

THE EXAMPLE OF HISTORY TEACHING DEMONSTRATES THAT ITʼS HARD TO AVOID CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES Greenawalt, Kent. Professor at Columbia Law School. “Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools.” Virginia Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. XVIII, 2002 http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/18- 2/329-381.PDF

The only plausible arguments against greater teaching about religion are that teachers and texts are likely to be inadequate or biased, and that the subjects are too controversial. We may largely put aside the last worry. No doubt, textbook writers, school boards, and teachers generally choose to avoid controversy. And among subjects of roughly equal significance, they may reasonably favor ones that will cause less controversy. But history teachers cannot avoid all controversial topics. If a subject has great intrinsic importance and books and teachers can present it fairly, students should learn about it, even if it happens to be controversial. The strength of the argument that teaching about religion is likely to be biased or inept may depend partly on distance in time. Events that occurred centuries ago are likely to be less highly charged, and historians may have developed something approaching a consensus about their significance. Teachers may attain a more detached view of the influence of the Puritans in Massachusetts than of the Religious Right during recent decades in the United States.53 Of course, many historical events continue to excite deep passions. Most teachers and students will come to the Protestant Reformation with strong opinions about whether Protestants or Catholics were more faithful to the Christian tradition. A teacher has to work hard not to appear to be taking sides. If she teaches, as she should, that the spread of Protestantism contributed to the rise of individual liberty in Europe, she may appear to suggest that Protestant reformers had a more enlightened view of the relation of individuals to states than did the Roman Catholic Church. She might counter this impression by noting that the main impetus to freedom of religion and other liberties was irreconcilable religious conflict, not enlightened Protestant views, and that only a small minority of early Protestants actually embraced religious liberty in principle. Although teaching about religion in history carries a serious risk of bias or inadequate understanding, much teaching about other ideological influences, such as socialism and communism, creates similar dangers. The influences of religion, including influences on general “secular” thought,”54 have been so great that highschool history courses should consider them in some depth, despite the risks involved.55 (JL)

THE EXAMPLE OF TEXTBOOKS DEMONSTRATES THAT ITʼS HARD TO ACCOMMODATE ALL INTERESTS Greenawalt, Kent. Professor at Columbia Law School. “Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools.” Virginia Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. XVIII, 2002 http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/18- 2/329-381.PDF

A straightforward educational reason not to accommodate the fundamentalists of Hawkins County concerned the locus of educational decisions and the value of uniformity. Exactly what texts to use will always be debatable; any text is bound to offend someone. Educational authorities reasonably suppose they are better equipped to make these decisions than ad hoc collections of parents. Once texts are chosen, it makes sense to have everyone use them. Teachers should not have to concern themselves with alternative texts for a few children. Even if the option of excusing children does not require further positive measures by public school teachers, it is disrupting to have some children leave when the time comes to consider the controversial material. And, in lower grades at least, the class teacher may bridge various subjects by references to what has been taught previously. A first-grade teacher who testified for the plaintiffs acknowledged on crossexamination that accommodating the plaintiffs would complicate teaching: “For one thing, I wouldnʼt know what they had been going over, the skills they had been taught, and I wouldnʼt be able to incorporate it into my other subjects that I would have to teach during the day.”132 Further, she wouldnʼt be able to introduce topics from the regular reading class that became relevant at other times. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 104 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

DISCUSSING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IS PREPARATION FOR CITIZENSHIP Miller, Barbara. Executive Director, Center for Education in Law and Democracy. “Controversial Issues and Democracy.” Street Law, 2001. https://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Democracy.pdf

Students who discuss controversial issues in school are more likely to understand democracy in action than their counterparts who experience a traditional curriculum. By learning how to reason together about competing ideas in a classroom setting, students gain practice in exchanging information and opinions about the role and shape of government. Through this experience, students will develop skills that their generation can use to address the gap between the goals of democracy and the reality presented by their society and their schools. Confronting controversial issues in the classroom prepares youth for fulfilling their role as citizens in their community and nation. (JL)

STUDENTS NEED TO BE ABLE TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES Burron, Arnold. Professor at University of Northern Colorado. “Controversial Issues: They Belong in the Classroom.” Education Policy Center Issue Backgrounder, April 2006.

In 1996, in an assembly at a Denver public school—Montbello High—Jamal X, a disciple of Louis Farrakhan, shocked his audience with a racially and religiously loaded polemic, purporting to reveal historical truth that had been deliberately concealed by the media and the educational establishment. His explosive allegations evoked fallout from regional media, prompting a major editorial in The Denver Post. In 32-point font, the headline of the editorial declared, “The Message of Jamal X Needs to be Answered.” “Other voices need to be heard,” asserted the Post. “This is ultimately a contest of ideas and attitudes that has more to do with the future than with the past. . .” The editors then identified leaders in the African- American community who were perceived to possess the credibility to rebut the propaganda of the Nation of Islam. The editorial ended with what could easily be construable as a plea: “Is there any way a student and community assembly can be organized featuring [other perspectives]?” What the Post was advocating is nothing less than a succinct rationale for an “Issues-based” curriculum. Controversial issues are not only desirable content for the curriculum, they are imperative. In the Information Age, no American can escape constant exposure to propaganda. Some of it will be the most hate-generating vitriol imaginable. Extremist groups abound. Their poison is promulgated on the Internet and a host of other outlets. Sound-bite cacophony on the airwaves has, in many instances, replaced rational discourse in the public forum. Since there is no limit to the variety and type of information that young people can access almost instantaneously, they need new skills in processing what they will encounter. Without specific instruction in how to analyze data critically, evaluate sources, and seek other indices of validation of information, the next generation of Americans will be susceptible to manipulation by skilled propagandists. Ill-advised local and national policy, predicated on limited or inaccurate information brought to bear on elected officials by various pressure groups, can be the result. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 105 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

VALUE/ETHICS EDUCATION REQUIRES DISCUSSING RELIGION Greenawalt, Kent. Professor at Columbia Law School. “Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools.” Virginia Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. XVIII, 2002 http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/18- 2/329-381.PDF

In various ways, schools teach about morality and good citizenship. Some of this teaching is implicit in the way teachers run classes and in what they expect of students. For example, when teachers insist that students respect one another and act civilly, they are both running their classes and indicating what are appropriate attitudes and behaviors in the broader society. Teachers of various courses, including history and literature, present material in a way that indicates appropriate attitudes and actions. In American history, our Revolution is treated as justified and desirable; that teaches that citizens should not submit to highly unjust political authority.63 Students reading Macbeth learn that overweening ambition is evil. Other teaching focuses more directly on values students may have and on how they should behave toward others and as citizens. In contrast to natural science and history, no settled secular methodology tells people how to evaluate their moral and political responsibilities. For many people, these responsibilities flow from religious understandings. An exclusion of religious perspectives from discussions of moral choices seems to imply that the right way to go about resolving such questions is according to some nonreligious approach — despite the fact that religion is at the center of morality for many citizens. (JL)

REFUSING TO DISCUSS RELIGION WITH REGARDS TO ETHICS IS BIASED AGAINST RELIGION Greenawalt, Kent. Professor at Columbia Law School. “Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools.” Virginia Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. XVIII, 2002 http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/18- 2/329-381.PDF

One might imagine a version of “values clarification” in which students are encouraged to consider whether they have a religious obligation to follow absolute values, but this has not been the gist of most such education. It implies an absence of absolute values, suggesting that an individual should choose values as she might a career, based on an assessment of what suits her best. This “psychological” approach to values disregards religious conceptions of values. It also suggests that the best understanding of values varies from the traditional religious view that moral values are not a typical subject of choice and come, in a sense, from the outside. Critics rightly have complained that a “values clarification” approach that fails to mention religious alternatives is hardly neutral to religious points of view. Teachers should say something about major religious approaches to values, although they might avoid delving deeply into various religious premises about values and their practical applications. (JL)

CIVICS CONCEPTS OFTEN FLOW FROM RELIGION Greenawalt, Kent. Professor at Columbia Law School. “Teaching About Religion in the Public Schools.” Virginia Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. XVIII, 2002 http://www.student.virginia.edu/~jalopy/PDFs/18- 2/329-381.PDF

Much of what I have written applies directly to civics courses. In these courses, teachers should trace major influences of religious ideas on civic understandings and the responsibilities of citizens. Students should learn about our tradition of religious liberty, about the basic ideas of free exercise of religion and separation of church and state, about religious pluralism and respect for people of different religious faiths, about religious organizations as important parts of civil society, and about religious perspectives or vantage points for evaluating the claims of secular governments. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 106 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

TRUE CRITICAL THOUGHT CHALLENGES ALL BELIEFS Carrier, Richard. Ph.D. in Ancient History at Columbia University. “Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?” Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, 1996. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/inquiry.html

All critical thought is by nature adversarial. A "positive" role belongs instead to creative thought. While the role of creative thought is to create ideas and possibilities, the role of critical thought is to debunk them, and it is only by these two processes working together that we arrive at knowledge and truth. Critical thought can be viewed in much the same way as natural selection: it does in a sense "create" by eliminating the "weak" and leaving the "strong". Thus, critical thought's role as a debunking device is essential and indispensable, and it must play a part in every act of knowing. But it does not eliminate ideas and possibilities until none are left. Nihilism is as irrational as blind faith, and as self limiting as naivety. Rather, critical thought eliminates until all that remains is the consistent, the probable, the tenable, the reliable, the useful--in other words, knowledge. Reinsmith writes that "critical thought must not see itself perpetually at odds with religion or spiritual practice; rather it must get to know and value its place within that domain." This cannot be true, because critical thought is perpetually at odds with everything, even ordinary and mundane thoughts and ideas, and critical thinkers not only accept this, but cherish the fact. This is not to say that we disbelieve everything; rather, it is to say that any honest critical thinker occasionally attacks everything with critical thought, even what they take for granted or believe to be certain or irrefutable. Needless to say, much of what we believe survives the assaults of critical thought by virtue of its being most probably true, but we nevertheless sick the dogs of critical thought upon even these beliefs, and rightly consider it a virtue to do so. We never know when we might uncover a mistake or an unwarranted assumption, or when new information may change what we now think to be true. But critical thinkers know that this is the only way to learn. (JL)

CRITICAL THINKING EXISTS TO PRODUCE BETTER BELIEFS Carrier, Richard. Ph.D. in Ancient History at Columbia University. “Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?” Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, 1996. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/inquiry.html

This must impress upon us the need to remember the proper role of critical thought, as Reinsmith himself explains and as I have concurred above: not to merely refute, but to refute with the end in mind of leaving exposed the most consistent, probable, tenable, reliable, or useful. Its role is to eliminate, but to eliminate falsehood and ambiguity in order to arrive at the truth. Thus, in the domain of religion, the role of critical thought is not to destroy all meaning, but to find true meaning by eliminating falsehood and nonsense. It may be tempting to assume that, since having any meaning to life appears more important than whether it is a valid one, we should not bother applying critical thought to this question at all. However, I argue that this is unwise. Not only may having a false source of meaning lead us to a life of conflict and unhappiness (from anger, disappointment, or fear), but it may leave us otherwise happy and at peace while bringing conflict and unhappiness to others (examples range from Islamic suicide bombers to the conservative Christian treatment of homosexuals). Even more importantly, however, it is hazardous to get into the habit of not genuinely caring whether we are wrong. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 107 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

WE NEED TO THINK CRITICALLY ABOUT RELIGION Carrier, Richard. Ph.D. in Ancient History at Columbia University. “Do Religious Life and Critical Thought Need Each Other?” Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across Disciplines, 1996. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/inquiry.html

Thus, religious life needs critical thought--because it is unwise to solve our problems with false beliefs even when there appears to be no direct harm in doing so; and critical thought needs religion--because religion consists of beliefs which provide us with an indispensable meaning to life (which, I should add, also serves as a meaning for our values, without which we could not rightly be called human). However, we must remember that "religion" is here used in a sense which can actually include "atheistic" belief systems such as Secular Humanism, Marxism, or Objectivism, since an ultimate meaning to life can conceivably be found without reference to anything supernatural, and actually has been by numerous groups of people.[12] Determining whether the supernatural claims of the various religions are true is identical to determining whether a scientific theory is true, except perhaps in the difficulty or impossibility of testing them. However, since these claims are regarded as indispensable because they provide meaning to life, few will even regard them as theories capable of refutation. On the other hand, once we know that meaning can be found without such claims, we no longer need them, and thus can criticize them with an open mind. (JL)

PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IS POOR Soley, Mary. Senior Program Officer in the Education and Training Division, US Institute of Peace. “If Itʼs Controversial, Why Teach It?” Social Education 60.1, 1996. JL

In the last decade there has been an explosion in the number and political bent of television and radio talk/call-in shows. Many of these shows are nothing more than "food fights" providing ample opportunity for diatribes and few chances for the in-depth investigation of reliable evidence or presentation of contrary points of view. Shows with a particularly strident ideological, political, economic, or social agenda are more entertainment than education, and I fear we are losing our ability to know the difference. Controversial issues, as presented in the media, are usually dealt with at a purely emotional level, often with little attention paid to an examination of evidence. With the exception of the kind of media program discussed in the next section, I am far from confident that the "airwaves" contribute substantially to the public's abilities to engage in an informed dialogue. (JL)

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS POOR Butler, Jon. Chair of History Department, Yale University. “Teaching About Religion in Public Schools: Where Do We Go From Here?” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life Keynote Speech, May 20, 2003. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/0520-keynote.pdf

Iʼm going to make an argument that no reading of the sixteen words in the First Amendment that deal with religion has ever or does now prohibit in the public school classroom an intellectual conversation about what religion is, how religions are practiced, what kinds of religions exist in the world, and what a difference religions do and donʼt make to the men and women who do and donʼt practice them. Weʼre poorly prepared, then, to comprehend a world that is aflame in faith. College students frequently know little about religion in the United States, much less about religion in the world. High school graduates who overwhelmingly constitute the military in the United States, know almost nothing about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or those branches of Christianity they do not practice themselves. And yet they have been asked to fight wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq over the past 15 years in which religion has stood at the very center of each conflict. And they are equally poorly prepared to deal with the aftermath of the war that they have just fought. (Fortunately, in the United States military today, they may now actually learn something about various rudiments of Islam – even if that knowledge is not particularly sophisticated and may in many regards be erroneous – if not other religions. They learn this in military briefings that are held because of the reality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.) (JL) 10PF3-Religious Issues Page 108 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

STUDENTS ARE POORLY-EQUIPPED NOW TO CHALLENGE THEIR BELIEFS The University of Queensland, Australia. “Inclusive Practices for Managing Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/cdip/pdfs/strategy_manageControversy.pdf

Students tend to come to university with an advocacy model of discussion (Trosset, 1998), believing that discussion is for the purpose of advocating views already held. They do not think that it is possible to have a balanced discussion of opposing views, believing that one perspective would dominate and that it would be unsafe to speak out against the dominant perspective. Generally though, more senior students tend to operate from a more exploratory model of discussion, seeing it as a means to seek information or learn a different perspective. A number of other student characteristics can interfere with the ability to discuss controversial issues. In one study, 25% of female students and fewer male students believed that they have the right to say or think what they believe, without being challenged. This view persisted until senior years of study (Trosset, 1998). Students and staff may have different beliefs about the meaning of tolerance, with staff expecting civil, well-mannered listening and behaviour towards all members of the community and students adopting a relativistic viewpoint, tending to believe that tolerance means approving of all ways of being as equally valid. (JL)

STUDENTS DONʼT KNOW HOW TO TOLERATE OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS Ohio Department of Education. “The Evidence Base for Social Studies: Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ode/ims/rrt/research/Content/controversial_issues_what_we_know.asp

Schools are communities in which young people learn to interact, argue and work together with others, an important foundation for democracy (Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Center for Information &Research on Civic Learning &Engagement, CIRCLE, 2003, p. 3). Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne state that a "good citizen" in a democratic society should be adverse to "either/or solutions, tolerant of ambiguity, skeptical of demagoguery and attentive to the tensions between individual and group and between liberty and order" (2003, p.14). All of these are attributes associated with the discussion of controversial issues. Often, students see political issues as "either/or", when in reality, there are multiple options that could be chosen or implemented, each with its own societal costs and benefits. As a result, they begin to develop a tolerance for ambiguity. In short, schools/classrooms are where students learn about how to become "good citizens" by discussing controversial issues. (JL)

STUDENTS HAVE FEW OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES Ohio Department of Education. “The Evidence Base for Social Studies: Controversial Issues.” Accessed October 9, 2010. http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ode/ims/rrt/research/Content/controversial_issues_what_we_know.asp

Recent observational data from research suggests that few students seriously study controversial issues, and that group discussions appear not to be prominent instructional modes (Hess and Posselt 2002, p. 287). In the 135 observed classes, students simply identified and offered opinions on the issues. No indications were present of students analyzing evidence or theories regarding causes and solutions to the identified problems. Textbooks rarely present various sides of controversies and almost never reveal to students the evidence on which each side bases its position (Loewen 1995, p. 265). One set of textbook authors, as quoted by Loewen, said "we have not avoided controversial issues; instead, we have tried to offer reasoned judgments on them" (1995, p. 5). As a result, students find difficulty in analyzing controversial issues when textbooks present problems as already having been solved or about to be solved (Loewen 1995, p. 2). Therefore, it is important to provide students opportunities to investigate issues that require them to seek intellectual balance by discussing the multiple perspectives held by individuals or groups associated with the issue. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 109 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

AMERICANS WANT RELIGION DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Lupu, Ira C, Masci, David, and Tuttle, Robert. Professor of Law at George Washington; Senior Research Fellow at Pew; Professor of Law and Religion at George Washington. “Religion in the Public Schools.” Religion and the Courts: The Pillars of Church-State Law, The Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, May 2007. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/religion-public-schools.pdf

Nearly a half-century after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling striking down school-sponsored prayer, Americans continue to fight over the place of religion in public schools. Indeed, the classroom has become one of the most important battlegrounds in the broader conflict over religionʼs role in public life. Some Americans are troubled by what they see as an effort on the part of federal courts and civil liberties advocates to exclude God and religious sentiment from public schools. Such an effort, these Americans believe, infringes upon the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Civil libertarians and others, meanwhile, voice concern that conservative Christians are trying to impose their values on students of all religious stripes. Federal courts, the civil libertarians point out, have consistently interpreted the First Amendmentʼs prohibition on the establishment of religion to forbid state sponsorship of prayer and most other religious activities in public schools. Despite that long series of court decisions, polls show that large numbers of Americans favor looser, not tighter, limits on religion in public schools. According to an August 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center, more than two-thirds of Americans (69%) agree with the notion that “liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of the schools and the government.”And a clear majority (58%) favor teaching biblical creationism along with evolution in public schools. (JL)

WE RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS SPEECH IN OTHER AREAS Lupu, Ira C, Masci, David, and Tuttle, Robert. Professor of Law at George Washington; Senior Research Fellow at Pew; Professor of Law and Religion at George Washington. “Religion in the Public Schools.” Religion and the Courts: The Pillars of Church-State Law, The Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, May 2007. http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Issues/Church-State_Law/religion-public-schools.pdf

Over the past 20 years, evangelical Christians and others have advanced the rights of religious organizations to have equal access to meeting space and other forms of recognition provided by public schools to students. These organizations have consistently succeeded in securing the same privileges provided by public schools to secular groups. Their victories have not been based on a claim that religious groups have a right to official recognition simply because they want to practice or preach their religion; instead, these cases have been won on free-speech grounds. Whenever public schools recognize student extracurricular activities (for example, a student Republican club or an animal rights group), the schools are deemed to have created a forum for student expression. The constitutional rules governing the forum concept are complicated, but one consistent theme is that the state may not discriminate against a person or group seeking access to the forum based on that personʼs or groupʼs viewpoint. In a now lengthy line of decisions, the Supreme Court has ruled consistently that religious groups represent a particular viewpoint on the subjects they address and that officials may not exclude that viewpoint from a government-created forum for expression or association. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 110 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE DEBATE WAS A MAJOR ISSUE WITH MUSLIMS ON BOTH SIDES Peter, Tom. Journalist. “Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals.” Christian Science Monitor, August 18, 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0818/Ground-Zero-mosque-debate- swirls-in-world-capitals

After nearly a month of debate, the controversy surrounding the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” continues to roil, both domestically and worldwide. Atlantic blogger Chris Good points out that the proposed Islamic community center has dominated much of the US news cycle and political discourse. It's also gaining traction in the world press, with Muslims coming down both for and against the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center. "Many Muslims fear that the mosque will become a shrine for Islamists, which would remind Americans of what Muslims did on 9/11," Gamal Abd Al- Gawad, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, told Arab News. “Some people express concern that if the mosque will be built, it will harm Muslims and Islam in America. Itʼs not good for Muslims and Islam to be in the heart of such a controversy,” he told the agency. Abd Al- Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday. “Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that "the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non- Muslim US citizens!" Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin- Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.” (JL)

REFUSAL TO DISCUSS THE MOSQUE IS INSTANCE OF REFUSING TO TALK ABOUT RELIGION Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque.” The Daily Beast, August 13, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/

In his speech, Mayor Bloomberg said, “It is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam.” He has since said that anyone opposed to this project “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” This, incidentally, is the same Mayor Bloomberg who could not bring himself to publicly condemn the practice of “oral suction” used by Orthodox mohels during the ritual of circumcision, despite the fact that it spreads herpes to infant boys, causing occasional brain damage and even death. Such failures of secular nerve can be given a general description: Tolerance of religious stupidity has a way of making liars and cowards of people who should have nothing to fear from the fruits of honest reasoning. And honest reasoning declares that there is much that is objectionable—and, frankly, terrifying—about the religion of Islam and about the state of discourse among Muslims living in the West, and it is decidedly inconvenient that discussing these facts publicly is considered a sign of “intolerance” by well-intentioned liberals, in part because such criticism resonates with the actual bigotry of not-so-well-intentioned conservatives. I can see no remedy for this, however, apart from simply ramming the crucial points home, again and again. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 111 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

EVEN MODERATE MUSLIMS SHOULD BE WILLING TO CRITICIZE EXTREMISM – ITʼS NOT BIGOTRY Harris, Sam. Ph.D. in Neuroscience from UCLA, Co-Founder of Project Reason. “What Obama Got Wrong About the Mosque.” The Daily Beast, August 13, 2010. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/

Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123; 47:4; 66:9)—only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)— He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time. Yes, it is true that the Old Testament contains even greater barbarism—but there are obvious historical and theological reasons why it inspires far less Jewish and Christian violence today. Anyone who elides these distinctions, or who acknowledges the problem of jihad and Muslim terrorism only to swiftly mention the Crusades, Israelʼs treatment of the Palestinians, the Tamil Tigers, and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma, is simply not thinking honestly about the problem of Islam. What one doesnʼt generally hear from Western Muslims is any frank acknowledgment of these unpleasant truths. In response to serious concerns raised over Islamic doctrines related to jihad, martyrdom, apostasy, and blasphemy—along with their incontrovertible link to terrorism, threats of violence, cartoon “controversies,” and the like—one generally meets with petulance, feigned confusion, half-truths, and non sequiturs. Apologists for Islam have even sought to defend their faith from criticism by inventing a psychological disorder known as “Islamophobia.” My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali is said to be suffering from it. Though she was circumcised as a girl by religious barbarians (as 98 percent of Somali girls still are) has been in constant flight from theocrats ever since, and must retain a bodyguard everywhere she goes, even her criticism of Islam is viewed as a form of “bigotry” and “racism” by many “moderate” Muslims. And yet, moderate Muslims should be the first to observe how obscene Muslim bullying is—and they should be the first to defend the right of public intellectuals, cartoonists, and novelists to criticize the faith. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Bigotry and racism exist, of course—and they are evils that all well- intentioned people must oppose. And prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, purely because of the accident of their birth, is despicable. But like all religions, Islam is a system of ideas and practices. And it is not a form of bigotry or racism to observe that the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society. Nor is it a sign of intolerance to notice when people are simply not being honest about what they and their co-religionists believe. (JL)

10PF3-Religious Issues Page 112 of 112 www.victorybriefs.com

DISCUSSING THE MOSQUE COULD HAVE DISPELLED MYTHS ABOUT ISLAM Wickham, Kelly. Teaching Tolerance Blogger, Southern Poverty Law Center and Assistant Principal at Lincoln Magnet School. “How do you bring Islam into the classroom?” Teaching Tolerance, Southern Poverty Law Center, September 1, 2010. http://www.tolerance.org/blog/how-do-you-bring-islam- classroom

In recent weeks, our country has been treated to an ugly reflection of itself. The controversy over the Islamic community center in New York City has been followed by a spate of anti-Muslim acts. They include the stabbing of a Muslim cabbie, attempted arson at a mosque in Tennessee and teens harassing Muslims at worship in upstate New York. The controversy over the New York community center has clearly made the biggest splash. When I first heard what people were saying about it I immediately wondered how to tackle this head-on as an educator. What would I say to my teachers about how to approach the subject in our history classes? How could I be a participant in a difficult conversation in which some of our Muslim students are directly affected? I decided to visit the local Islamic Society to get information. Teachers, I have learned, are at their best when they are students themselves and are seeking to become more educated. While there is something to be said for immersing yourself in a new and different culture, it can have unintended consequences. One of my friends recently admitted that she was hurt when someone invited her children to a playgroup simply for the forced and artificial act of “having a diverse group.” When I visited the Islamic Society center I was careful not to make the praying Muslims there a fascination. My goal was not to shine a spotlight on them. Instead, I wanted to build a relationship in which I could answer studentsʼ questions. That relationship was needed because information about Muslim culture and history is glaringly absent from our history books and curriculum. Many of my students know of Islam only through the September 11 terrorist attacks. (JL)

IGNORANCE ABOUT ISLAM IS HIGH AND HAS REAL EFFECTS Lester, Emile and Roberts, Patrick. Professor of Government at William and Mary; Postdoctoral fellow at Stanford. “Learning About World Religions in Public Schools.” First Amendment Center, 2006. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/FirstForum_ModestoWorldReligions.pdf

Respect for religious liberty and understanding of religious diversity are not only crucial to peace within America, but for a stable international system. Our nationʼs relationship with Muslims of the Middle East region has become the primary concern of our foreign policy in the wake of the events of 9/11. We are already involved in one large-scale military conflict in the region, and involvement in other conflicts is possible. By choosing action or inaction, intervention or non-intervention, todayʼs citizens are playing a fundamental role in determining the future of the Middle East. Our choices have a profound effect on the way people around the world perceive our nation. The correct policy towards the Middle East is open to debate, but the need to ground our policy on an accurate understanding of Islam in general and the varieties of Islam in the Middle East is incontestable. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that we are not responding as well as we could to the challenges of religious diversity. An ABC News poll found that from January 2002 to September 2003, the number of respondents that said Islam encourages violence rose from 14% to 34% while the number of respondents who have an unfavorable view of Islam rose from 24% to 34% during the same period.5 This shift in attitudes has had distressing behavioral consequences.6 The Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic civil rights groups, released a finding in 2004 showing a 15% increase in incidents of violence, discrimination and harassment of Muslims in America since 2002.7 Many Muslims at home and abroad have questioned whether the harassment of some Muslims under the Patriot Act and the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have been incited at least in part by anti-Muslim bias.8 (JL)