The Threat

Christian History

Another Shot for Creationism

The Threat

When the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett helped to end prayer and Bible recitation in public schools, religious groups began efforts to restore this invasive and unconstitutional practice. But recent proposals like the "Religious Equality Amendment" suggest that the goals of present religious activists are far more wide-sweeping than a simple minute prayer. Religious doctrine threatens to re-write the school curriculum, from science to history.

It is more than just an effort to legislate a short moment of prayer in public school classrooms.

Today, the religious right -- a host of different fundamentalist and evangelical movements such as Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, or James Dobson's Focus in the Family -- is flexing its muscles on behalf of what it terms "religious liberty", and its exercise in nearly all quarters of contemporary life. The goal of amending the U.S. Constitution, or passing individual state laws to permit prayer in schools has been left far, far behind. The target is bigger; the goal, larger -- even breath-taking. The objective is to insinuate religion into as many areas of the school curriculum as possible, to re-shape the traditionally secular, public school system into a vehicle for religious instruction. The key rests in the deceptive phrase "religious liberty."

Religious conservatives like Jay Seculow, Director of the ACLJ, submit that the "problem" of prayer in schools cannot be addressed without invoking a larger and more comprehensive notion of "religious liberty." Sekulow and others begin by postulating a quasi-conspiratorial theory of contemporary history; that government has become actively "hostile" to the exercise of religion, especially its manifestation in "the public square." The Christian Coalition's Contract With the American Family, a take-off on the GOP's Contract, then proceeds to criticize court rulings restricting religious expression." The Contract then proceeds to criticize court rulings restricting religious displays in public squares at Christmas time and Hanukkah. The solution, according to the Coalition and its friends, is a Religious Equality Amendment.

Critics, of course, point out that religious exercise is already guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. but ah, there's the rub! In no uncertain terms, the amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That provision, dubbed the "Establishment Clause" is the bedrock of decisions such as Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) which fostered the "Lemon" or "three-pronged" test. Under Lemon, the Establishment Clause was interpreted in such a fashion as to enjoin the state from engaging in any activity which had as its primary purpose the fostering of religion, favoring one religious belief over another, or resulted in "excessive entanglement" between state and church. Naturally, Lemon has become a bette noire of the religious right.

With "religious liberty" already guaranteed in the First Amendment, though, what would be the purpose of an amendment? Let me suggest at least two possible goals, or results, of a Religious Equality Amendment, which loom large and threatening on the horizon of the American political landscape.

By assenting to the notion that religious belief and doctrines have an important place in the "teaching" of a wide range of subjects within the public school curriculum, one is then confronted with difficult tasks. Which doctrine does one teach? And in what context? Could one say, for instance, that the Genesis story of Creation rests on the same mythic substance as does the Babylonian, or Incan or various African tales of the origin of the universe? In the teaching about the religious aspects of history, should students be taught an exhaustive account of intolerance exemplified by the Crusades and the Inquisitions? Or the Salem Witch trials? Or slavery?

Christian Revisionist History

Of course, if the proponents of the Religious Equality Amendment have their way, those sorts of dilemmas will be somewhat maximized. The same movements and organizations which propose the Amendment often have their own, distinct interpretation of the historical record which they would have taught in public schools newly liberated from the grips of Atheism, "dogmatic science", heresy and secular "humanism." There exists a whole panoply of ready-made and newly-revised historical "facts" ready to be dispensed from the bully pulpit of public education. We might aptly the term, for this peculiar version of events, past as "Christian Revisionism." Its leading proponent is a little-known but highly influential religious activist named David Barton

While his name is not recognized as part of the evening news, he is well publicized inside the thriving fundamentalist religious sub-culture. Even the religious-separationist magazine Church & State asked "Why is he (Barton) saying such awful things about separation of church and state?" His hour-long documentary "America's Godly Heritage" plays at countless religious gatherings, and his 1989 book "The Myth of Separation" finds an army of quoters inside groups like the Christian Coalition. Barton's materials are often part of the ammunition used by the Eagle Forum in trying to amend Utah's state Constitution, and flyers which echo his teachings concerning the First Amendment even pop up at Republican Party gatherings.

Barton does more than question the canon of history -- he re-writes it to suit a religious agenda. He insists, for example that the Separation of Church and State (a stricture found in the Establishment Clause and interpreted in Lemon and other cases) is not a "teaching"of the Founding Fathers, or even part of jurisprudence save for recent years. It is likewise not a biblical teaching. (About this final point, Barton may indeed be correct.)

David Barton has also spawned the oft-quoted premise of religious conservatives that (a) the "Wall of Separation" espoused by Thomas Jefferson does not exist, or (b) if it does, it isa "one directional" (sic) wall restraining the government, but making sure that religious, i.e. Christian principles remain a guiding force in the nation's legal and social development.

There are other Bartonesque notions as well which find a willing audience on the religious right. Early renditions of Barton's tape of "America's Godly Heritage" claimed that even Jefferson himself spoke of this "one-directional (sic)" wall, although there is absolutely no evidence for this claim. Barton also has insisted that nearly all of the Founders of the Republic were "orthodox, evangelical Christians." Historians may rightly question whether these terms aptly characterize the religious scene over two centuries ago, considering that "evangelical" was not used as a term until the 19th century. There is also the fact that many Founders were deists or religious skeptics of some kind.

Others, perhaps less extreme in their willingness to re-write history, may still insist that religion be considered in its role as an "important element" in the nation's development. Textbook wars, though, have already become a cause celebre of the religious right, on matters such as sex education and evolution. Deciding exactly how religion should be included in the history or sociology curriculum surely promises to enlarge this battleground.

Another Shot for Creationism

If religion is to be introduced in the public schools as history, ethics and values, then why not as science? Creationism -- the doctrine that events described in the book Geneisis are, literal truth, and includes elements such as the "young earth" and "creation", as opposed to evolution of species -- has not been entirely vanquished from the biology classes and science labs. It is a distinctively Christian notion; and when religious advocates speak of teaching "religious accounts of the beginning", they are rarely if ever, referring to the Babylonian or Egyptian or Chinese tales about how the universe came to be.

Creationism and its advocates like the Institute for Creation Research in California have not been that successful in getting their agenda into biology or other science programs.There has been limited success in prompting some schools to insist that Creationism is, like science, "just another possible version" students may investigate in trying to discover how life arose. Evolution, of course, is more than just a "version"; unlike Creationism, it is supported by a considerable body of physical evidence which grows substantially each year. Even some of the more creative attempts by "scientific creationists" to depict, for example, the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, has met with dismal results.

But as the physical record which can be mustered on behalf of creationism has shrunk, its social appeal within religious circles has steadilly increased. It remains alive, healthy, and combative. School districts which become embroiled in controversy over sex education or "inappropriate" books in the school library often see their share of creationists demanding "equal time" for doctrines. Unfortunately, there have been numerous occassions where creationists were better informed and prepared than their opponents; they can often do well in debates and other public venues, even if their "evidence" is less than truthful. Like other disciplines, evolutionary principles often require a substantial amount of information and understanding. Creationists know this; and besides, they often "play to the audience" with the goal of winning converts, rather than examining scientific evidence in a dispassionate, objective fashion.

Should a Religious Equality Amendment of any kind pass, we may well see a phase of the "culture wars" which surpasses even the intensity and divisiveness of the abortion issue. Under the excuse of "teaching religion", or exposing students to our nation's alleged "religious roots", we risk transforming the school curriculum from (hopefully) a series of subjects to be investigated, into parcels of territory contested by religious factions. The hope of teaching a balanced view of history and the workings of society would be supplanted by an agenda reflecting religious bias. And by then, what remains of a secular public school system would have even less than a fainthearted prayer.

[text only]