Archive for the ‘Islam’ Category

Why Florida’s School Prayer Bill is a Bad Idea

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

On the same day as the Washington state senate votes on a bill to legalize gay marriage, the Florida senate was preparing to vote on a bill that would legalize prayer in public school classrooms, further illustrating the widening rift between the religious right and the secular left in the United States. Ideally no such rift would exist in the first place, but the argument supporting public school prayer has several problems which deserve to be addressed: it is unrealistic to think that all religions will be accommodated, public school prayer could create unnecessary tensions and divisions in the classroom, and there is a perfectly legitimate alternative.

On the surface, the bill would seem to skirt any potential violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by ensuring that all religions are represented fairly and neutrally, as in a comparative religion class. Only students would be allowed to give the prayers, which would be required to include a message of inspiration. The definition of what is inspirational would be determined by the state, and school districts would not have the authority to change this definition. Additionally, in order to prevent public officials from endorsing a biased view of religion, public school employees would be barred from vetting or in any other way revising or changing the students’ prayers. Ostensibly, under the proposed law, any religious message could and would be accommodated.

It isn’t certain that this is the case, though, and there are some serious logistical problems with any attempt to accommodate religious prayers and messages in public schools. To be fair, the religions of all students must be accommodated, without a single exception. But how do we accomplish this? With some sort of special list or roster? Only so many students can be accommodated, and most students are Christian, so by the time a non-Christian student has the chance to get their name on the school’s special “prayer list”, it might be too late because every space is filled in with the name of a Christian student. Florida schools might have to start turning away non-Christians if and when Christians gain the upper-hand. Also, it’s hard to believe the average Florida school administrator would accommodate a Satanist or voodoo practitioner, so all religions probably wouldn’t be represented. The consequence is that the vast majority of prayers would represent a Judeo-Christian perspective, while some would most likely be flatly rejected or, at the very least, discouraged. And that isn’t exactly fair. So even if the stated intent is to represent a fair and neutral perspective on religion, it won’t necessarily turn out that way.

Besides, even if we were able somehow to bring together all religious viewpoints in the public school classroom, there is no guarantee that these viewpoints will meld together harmoniously and peacefully in an environment of mutual respect. People are passionate about their religious beliefs because, by habit, religion tends to be less concerned with calm philosophical reasoning. This is perhaps even truer for the male-dominated Abrahamic religions, which have been the source of much violence and terrorism in the world. Imagine if a Christian student said a prayer, and a fundamentalist Muslim student was offended by the Christian’s message, or, equally, if a Muslim said a prayer and a fundamentalist Christian decided he deserved to be harassed or beaten on the playground to punish his spiritual infidelity. Given their minority status, Muslim, pagan, atheist, and other students will be especially vulnerable to harassment and bullying in school if stormy, emotional debates about religion are opened up in public schools. This is particularly worrying due to the fact that schools are supposed to be places where students have access to education in a safe, peaceful environment. Creating opportunities for religious tension and, potentially, bullying, doesn’t seem like a good idea, then, especially given the growing cultural diversity of the United States.

The problems with Florida’s school prayer bill do not end with the difficulties of trying to accommodate every religion, or the tensions created by opening up the classroom to religious instruction; they include the assumption that all good moral and inspirational messages are necessarily rooted in religious instruction. One supporter of the Florida bill, Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, suggested that opponents of the bill didn’t want children to be inspired at all, as CBS Miami reports: Storms expressed her bewilderment over the mounting opposition to the bill, asking, “[d]o you suppose that opponents want, instead of to inspire little first graders, maybe they want to demoralize them?” But this is a fallacy. What Storms does here is create a false dichotomy, which states that only one of two options are possible when in fact there is a third (and, probably, many more), perfectly good option. Storms assumes that only religious inspirational messages or demoralizing messages are possible when in fact secular inspirational messages are possible, too. Nobody is arguing that children shouldn’t be inspired, but the inspiration of our nation’s children needn’t be rooted in religion; it is this secular inspirational message which is appropriate for public school situations. It almost seems as though Storms knows this but deliberately creates the impression that it isn’t the case. So, no, the people of Florida – as well as the rest of America – doesn’t have to settle with a bill that permits religious prayer in public schools.

All of this public school prayer legislation is a bit tiring, especially in a country which is supposed to be a secular democracy, but separation of state and church is a principle worth fighting for. Florida’s proposed school prayer measure is simply a bad idea: it’s unlikely that all religious viewpoints will be accommodated, it opens the door to religious tension and conflict, and secular messages offer a perfectly legitimate and neutral alternative for inspiring and electrifying students in a spirit of solidarity and harmony. When we reflect on these observations, legislation like the Florida bill begins to look more like an incrementalist attempt to insinuate religion into public policy, an ominous prospect indeed. This is something the Universal Life Church Monastery treats with extreme caution, because it is a fine line between letting students express their religious beliefs, and endorsing those beliefs through preferential treatment.

Source:
CBS Miami

    Bible Shows Human Errors, Scholars Say

    Monday, August 22nd, 2011

    Contrary to the claims of evangelical Christians and many Orthodox Jews, the Bible does not appear to be the unalterable, inerrant word of God. Hebrew scholars been undertaking a project to publish an authoritative critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament for Christians) and trace every change made to the text over the millennia. What they have found is that the original Hebrew Bible was significantly different from the one Jews and Christians revere today. This does not make the Bible useless, however; it merely makes it human.

    A group of Hebrew scholars have been working on publishing a comprehensive critical edition of the Hebrew Bible out of a small office in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. According to Mattie Friedman of The Huffington PostBible Project scholars have spent years combing through manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls, Greek translations on papyrus from Egypt, a printed Bible from 1525 Venice, parchment books in handwritten Hebrew, the Samaritan Torah, and scrolls in Aramaic and Latin”. The work is so painstaking and attention to detail so rigorous that the group have completed only the first three of the Hebrew Bible’s twenty-four books (Christians divide the same texts up into thirty-nine books) since they began the Bible Project, as the endeavor is known, in 1958. Another book will be completed sometime during the following academic year. At that rate, the entire edition should be completed just over two hundred years from now.

    But the wait should be worthwhile, as the project is already giving us a glimpse into how the Hebrew Bible has changed over time. It would seem that the current text many Jews and Christians rely on for divine guidance is, in fact, the product of centuries of human intervention. For example, Bible Project scholars have produced a chart listing all of the variations of a single phrase from the Book of Malachi. In our current version of the book, the phrase states “those who swear falsely”, but in quotations from rabbinic writings dating to around the fifth century, it states “those who swear falsely in my name”; meanwhile, a passage from Deuteronomy referring to commandments given by God “to you” once read “to us”, showing a crucial difference in meaning. But inconsistencies can prove even more significant: our current version of the Book of Jeremiah is one-seventh longer than the version which appears in the two thousand year-old Dead Sea scrolls. Importantly, some prophesies—such as the one about the Babylonians seizing and returning Temple implements—seem to have been added retroactively, after the events actually happened.

    Then there is the question, what is the exact nature of these changes and discrepancies? Bible Project scholars attribute the great bulk of them to textual anomalies, scribal errors, and other human mistakes which inevitably became a part of the Hebrew Bible and were inherited generation after generation through both oral and written traditions. In other words, the Hebrew Bible we use today includes these human errors within its pages.

    What does all of this imply for the authority of Judeo-Christian scripture? It basically means that Jews and Christians are preaching from a holy book created by humans. The Bible Project’s discoveries pose fundamental theological problems for Jews, because Jews view the Hebrew Scriptures, which include the Torah, as divine prophecy, but some of these prophesies seem to have been added after the event by human scribes. It also affects the meaning of Biblical teachings themselves. If older, more reliable texts say one thing, but newer texts in current use say another thing, which version is authoritative? Older versions of the Hebrew Bible, such as the Aleppo Codex, are considered more authentic because they are closer to the literary source, hence religious zealots all over the world may be using flawed or bowdlerized Biblical material to justify their moral convictions. And the fact that the “Word of God” apparently is not immutable and has changed over the years at the hands of humans implies that God has either changed his mind over the centuries, allowed humans to tamper with the texts that he inspired, or never played a role in the composition of the texts in the first place. At any rate, the Bible Project’s discoveries are important for modern-day people to know about, because they show that the stories and teachings fanatics use today to defend potentially harmful moral prejudices may not entirely support those prejudices after all.

    Besides, even if the teachings found in the completed Bible Project edition end up aligning closely with those found in newer editions, so what? It still would not prove that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired—it would only prove that bad habits are hard to break. But we already know that there are at least some major discrepancies.

    Despite its flaws, the Hebrew Bible is not an entirely useless work. It is still an epic literary masterpiece reflecting the legends, lore, and ethos of an historical people, and it seems unfair to expect human beings to inherit a perfectly embalmed vessel of God’s message generation after generation, century after century, without God overseeing every tiny human action. Inevitably, if human beings do indeed have free will, they will deliberately tamper with a manuscript here and there or accidentally make an incorrect pen-stroke, thus altering the content of Scripture and the Holy Bible for lifetimes to come. This does not mean that it is untrustworthy; it simply means that it was written by human beings, and it is silly to expect perfection in an imperfect species to begin with. In fact, this observation makes it easier to accept the Bible, because it suggests that the Bible was not the work of a schizophrenic, inconsistent, self-contradictory deity, but the work of people, whose foibles we can predict. If we can rely on human beings to make errors, we can rely on these errors to be reflected over the centuries in their greatest religious narratives. At the end of the day, they still tell us something about ourselves.

    Source:

    The Huffington Post