I return to the subject of religion – specifically its role in society and in education in particular. But my argument comes not from any particular religious partisanship. To understand my motivation better please see the expansive disclaimer that appears below the text at the * below - better read before proceeding. Those for whom this is irrelevant may skip this.
My prime concern in this musing is education policy in
America and how it powerfully discriminates against freedom of religion in
education, and thus, by implication, against religious freedom generally.
My claim is that, because of the way public education is set
up and regulated in America today, parents who value a significant religious
component in their children’s education, are being denied the freedom to choose
such an education for them. By “religious component” I mean a curriculum in
which the values, practices, norms, as well as the history and development, of
a particular religion are taught.
As it stands, two aspects of the structure of public
education conspire to deny parents this option, or at least to make it much
more expensive than it would otherwise be (effectively, therefore, denying it
to those who “cannot afford” it). These two aspects are 1. The fact that public
education is produced (not just subsidized) by the government; and 2. Applying
an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that
prohibits the teaching of any and all religion in public schools.
I am not competent to comment on the legal niceties of the “establishment
clause” of this amendment, which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”
however, it is plain that this clause by itself is insufficient to obtain
current practice regarding religion in public education. Such practice relies
on developed precedents regarding the worthy doctrine of the separation of
church (religion) and state.
In simple common-sense terms, this doctrine suggests that it
is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution for government to use taxpayer
money to promote or favor the practice of any religion over any other, and
therefore, government should stay out of religion. Allowing the government to
use taxpayer money to promote religious practice or education invites the
danger of serious abuse in that the public servants using the money are not the
taxpayers who paid the money. This makes eminent sense within the context of government
produced education. Parents as taxpayers do not have the ability to directly
shape or even influence the religious content of a curriculum produced by
government employees, who are accountable not to the parents, but to their
administrative superiors and ultimately to some elected school board.
Dissatisfied parents have few options. In this context, the ban on religious
content may well be construed as protecting parents – ensuring that their
children are not educated to a “foreign” religion without their consent.
But, by the same logic, this “protection” also ensures that
parents desiring a particular religious education for their children cannot get
it in the public school to which their children are zoned. There is no choice
among public schools for parents under school zoning. In effect, what this
amounts to, it that public schools are run according to the religion of “no
religion”. And, indeed, in many parts of the country this is a preferred
outcome for those antagonistic to the teaching of any religion whatsoever – the
preferred outcome of many modern secular intellectuals hostile to the very idea
of organized religion.
The matter could be easily and justly solved by allowing
parents to retain discretion of how the taxpayer money used for their child’s
education is spent; removing the requirement that the money be used by the
government to produce education. In other words, though government would
continue to subsidize education, it need not continue to produce it unless that
is the preferred choice of enough parents. One form of this would be an
educational voucher system, Another would be a tax-credit system. Who could
object to this?
Of course, many do object for a variety of spurious reasons.
But the one that is relevant here is the objection that claims that allowing
such a voucher system violates the principle of church-state separation as
required by the 1st Amendment. My claim, and that of many much more
knowledgeable than I, including many legal experts, including some court
decisions, is that this is false. Courts have held that the separation doctrine
is not violated by the parents’ exercise of a choice to educate their child in
a manner including a religious component as long as that is one of many options
among which the parent may choose, thus ensuring that there is no compulsion
involved. Arguments to the contrary are predicated on the notion that somehow
that money cannot be construed as “belonging” to the parents. It is “public”
money. To argue thus seems to make a mockery of the fact that the money is
intended to educate the parent’s child, yet to argue that the parent should not
have any direct say in how the child is educated. After all, the parent pays the
tax for the express purpose of this education.
But, I would argue further, this setup effectively denies
the parent a crucial component of religious freedom, namely, the freedom to use
his money to educate his child as he sees fit according to his chosen religion.
Far from being a consequence of the 1st Amendment, it appears to my
untrained mind, to be a gross violation of it, significantly impeding the
“establishment” of religion by making the education of it significantly more
expensive.
The implications of this are enormous. Quite simply it has
meant the hobbling of all religious education in America by forcing those
parents who want it to pay for it twice – once in the form of taxes and once in
the form of alarmingly expensive tuition in private religious schools. The
business model of such schools, having to compete with the “free” education
available in the public school is seriously compromised. Public schools, in
effect, are protected monopolies against which private religious schools cannot
compete, especially and tragically for lower income families.
The enormity of this can be gauged by imagining the boost
that private religious schools would get under a voucher system allowing a
chosen religious school to earn the taxpayer money earmarked for a child’s
education (as long as state secular curriculum requirements were fulfilled). It
would herald a revolutionary transformation of religious education in America.
Parents who want affordable quality education for their
children that includes a religious component, and those who support their right
to choose this option, would do well to understand the implications of the current
system and work to reform it to allow universal school choice, starting with
their own particular school district.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*disclaimer:
At the outset I need to issue a disclaimer. I carry
no banner for organized religion of any kind. Though I feel a strong Jewish
identity, which is undoubtedly connected to the religion, I myself am not at
all religious in the usual sense of the word. I am, strictly speaking, agnostic
with respect to some of the factual claims of the religion and a complete
disbeliever with respect to most of them. With regard to the moral authority
claimed by its teachings, I see none. I judge the moral status of those
teachings from an external standard of my own – my own moral conscience.
With regard to the value of religion in society (a big
subject) I see both pros and cons. Clearly, the human inclination to be
religious (to believe in some external guiding spirit that is the source of
morality, of security, of justice and so on) is extremely powerful and
universal. One finds it in all places at all times, to a greater or lesser
extent – the current era perhaps being one in which a greater proportion of
people can claim to be without religion than ever before – justifying its
identification as a unique secular period in human history.
Personally, I find this easy to understand, yet, at the same
time, being irreligious, extremely puzzling. It is easy to understand because
this is a frightening and bewildering world in which there is comfort to be
gained from the knowledge that there is a purpose to life that is determined
and guided by a benevolent higher power. I understand and sympathize with this
belief. I almost wish I could share it. However, there is a wide gap between
the desire to believe something and
the ability to believe it. I find it
impossible to understand how very intelligent, rational people can believe
unbelievable things – and there are many in that category – a belief impervious
to compelling contrary evidence.
The pros and cons of religion can be summed up in the
observation that, when religion is a matter of free choice, it works powerfully
in favor of social harmony, stability and creativity; but when it is a matter
of compulsion it is a source of great evil and destruction.
Religion is the source of much artistic and philosophical
richness. It provides the social support and guidance for individuals to cope
with the challenges of this world. It has always been an important
manifestation of a crucial “tribal solidarity”. And, where it is a matter of
voluntary affiliation, with freedom to enter and exit unmolested, its value is
inestimable. I say this not as an endorsement of everything in organized
religion (or of the Jewish religion in particular). In terms of my own moral
code, there are many aspects of religious teaching that I regard as repugnant
and socially dysfunctional – and many as matters of annoying superstition. But,
unless coercion is involved I regard these as matters of private choice and not
as socially destructive.
On the other hand, whenever religion has allied with
political power it has been an overwhelmingly destructive force. Throughout
history, it has been the cause or the excuse (or, in part, both) of war,
oppression and brutality. The tyrannical impulse derives much power from the
ability to claim to be implementing the word of god (Communism invented its own
“secular god” which proved, perhaps surprisingly, to be just as powerful). The
most powerful modern-day manifestation of this is Islamist fundamentalism. It
is no accident that the European Enlightenment and the Age of Reason that
emerged in Renaissance Europe took the predominant form of the fight for
religious freedom.
So, I am the furthest thing you can imagine from a religious
fanatic, or even a mildly religious enthusiast looking to promote acceptance of
its teachings. My concern comes from a completely different place. It comes
rather from a powerful belief in the importance of religious freedom. I favor
an education inclusive of religious history and doctrine. We should know our
heritage, its riches, its evolution, for better or for worse, and, as free
critical thinkers should decide for ourselves how we feel about it.
