Connecticut legislation aims to expand Islam education in public schools

It’s more complicated than many seem to realize.

If you’re going to have the 10 commandments, why not also the 5 pillars (Islam)? And where does it stop? The four noble truths? The threefold path? The five constant virtues? (I think Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism respectively.)

Do you base it on the local community?

If you base it solely on history, then it’s the 10 commandments and no more, I suppose. But that was 250 years ago.

And herein lies the problem of Christian Nationalism, or the continuing drive since the 1950's to embed Christian religious elements into our national systems. At some point, the tide will shift. We are going to have the same problems with what Trump has done in expanding the executive branch. When a socialist democrat enters office and takes advantage of the same power that Trump has expanded into, everyone will throw up their arms on where the checks and balances are, and will slowly realize that they were the ones that removed them. Yes, our public school systems are not Sunday morning Children's church. If you want your religous symbols highlighted, than prepared when everyone else wants theirs.

I fear you’re probably right about most of that. The law of unintended consequences.

I’m not sure what the solution to the school situation is. The idealist in me that refuses to die wonders why a ‘secular’ school system couldn’t also be ‘pro-religion’ in general without being pro-Religion in particular.

There’s ‘aggressively secular’ and there’s pro-religion but neutral. Not the same thing, though there is overlap. You wouldn’t be able to allow ‘proselytizing’ in that environment, but you could certainly live the Faith and let it be known that you’re happy to answer questions. There’s a lot of gospel conversation space there on the compliant side of not proselytizing.

Just musing out loud. It seems like the spirit of what the founders intended. Everybody free to come to their own conclusions about the ultimate questions—but the state not hostile to ‘faith systems.’ Isn’t that the obvious intent of the First Amendment? I’ve never understood why there’s so much confusion and controversy on that.

Remember back in the 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's schools were one room, teachers were paid by the community in which they taught, and most communities had the same shared values and beliefs. So a teacher called by a Quaker community would get a Quaker teacher, and one called by a Baptist community got a Baptist. And even those that didn't all share the same faith, they were close enough that they all believed in God, prayer and the Bible in general. We are trying to hold onto a bit of that model today, by trying to legislate that into the schools. But it is a loosing battle. The problem with the idea of "faith systems" is that there is a growing percentage of the population that views any religious faith as hostile.

dgszweda wrote: The problem with the idea of “faith systems” is that there is a growing percentage of the population that views any religious faith as hostile.

I don’t disagree that we can’t legislate that schools be friendly to religion, but based on the 1st amendment, we should be able to make sure they are not hostile to faith or its expressions by teachers and students either.

Honestly, though, the way that most of us handled this was to exit the public schools completely, so we could have teachers and the whole educational experience closer to what we believe. I didn’t regret this back in the 90’s when my kids started school. Seeing the regression in the schools since then has only strengthened my views on it.

The school problem sort of echoes the issues that came up regarding marriage and what government should support or not. Back before the definition of marriage was expanded, I was personally in favor of taking marriage completely out of the government equation and leaving it to the churches to handle. I was in favor of government allowing and enforcing contracts only, where a contract could specify partnership, shared ownership, medical visitation rights and rights of inheritance upon death. Any other meanings specific to marriage would be between us, God, and the church. Government wouldn’t officially recognize marriage at all. I got some pushback from other Christians when I argued for this, but I think it would have been much better than pushing for only the Christian definition, and then having government specifically recognize other forms of “marriage,” which I thought was inevitable in the same way that having government specifically recognize religion leading to it having to recognize all forms of religion “equally.”

All that to say, in my opinion, the less we let government handle, generally the better off we are. If you want your child to be educated in the “lowest common denominator” of beliefs, that’s what you’ll get.

I don't see a lot of push to bring the Christian religion into public schools. Like Dave B pointed out, there has been more of a push from Christians to just avoid the public schools. I have seen a push for the 10 commandments in some places. Those commands bridge multiple religious traditions and I have not really had a dog in that hunt. I think what people are a bit alarmed about is that for years we have been told NO Christian influence in the schools and now we are being told that Muslim influence must be accepted. I will obviously be on a different side from someone who thinks that Christian influence is alarming and Islam is not.

JD Miller wrote: I will obviously be on a different side from someone who thinks that Christian influence is alarming and Islam is not.

JD, I’d certainly agree with you on that point. However, seeing that in public schools today, we can’t even get agreement on what constitutes being a boy vs. being a girl, or teaching about America without calling us all oppressors and our form of government corrupt, or whether objectivity or logic are good and to be desired, or whether we can insist on correct English usage and pronunciation, or whether students should learn to be polite and respectful, or even whether math problems have right vs. wrong answers, I’m inclined to think the whole system needs to be burned down and started over (or just thrown away without replacement). Throwing Islam into the mix is almost just noise at this point.

When we don’t share any common values, a common educational system makes no sense to me at all.

dcbii wrote: All that to say, in my opinion, the less we let government handle, generally the better off we are. If you want your child to be educated in the “lowest common denominator” of beliefs, that’s what you’ll get.

There is some truth to this, because, as far as teaching content goes, you’d have to go with where there is consensus. This is built in when you have religious freedom + religious diversity + democratic government. So, looking back at the time when a community was homogenous and taught what the community believed in, the major differences between then and now are diversity and mobility. People relocate a lot and bring their diverse beliefs with them.

These are features of the ideological landscape, like mountains and rivers, and aren’t going anywhere. So we have to work with what is not changeable. Lots of debate happens as to whether these mountains and rivers are good or bad, but it doesn’t much matter. They are here.

But ‘least common denominator’ I want to push back on a little. There is more ‘in common’ than many realize, across religions. So, from a doctrinal standpoint, sure, most of what happens when you look for consensus, is reduction. You get down to a smaller and smaller set of ideas. But at some point that levels off. What you are left with, given our context, is smaller but is it weaker because it’s smaller? Is it meaningless because it’s smaller?

I’m not sure it is.

We are talking about the temporal only, of course. Nobody is getting ‘closer to heaven’ by embracing a set of moral values in a religious consensus. But they are treating one another better and more likely to thrive as humans and as a society. As Christians, we know that is not our ultimate goal with people, but it is still a good. And good is good—and always better than bad.

Hostility? I’m not sure how much of this current trope of the right is true. What I observe is a lot of statistical evidence that people increasingly don’t identify with a recognized ‘religion.’ In addition, I see a lot of over-reaction in response to efforts by folks on the right to re-institutionalize Christian ideas that were once more widely shared by the culture. The ‘hostility’ seems to me to mostly responding to push with shove. What if we didn’t push? How much of the shove would happen? It’s hard to know.

But many of the same data collection instruments show people having a generally positive regard toward Christian people, and very high levels of openness to ‘spirituality.’ So I think a large chunk of the zeitgeist is has to do with anti-institutionalism—distaste for organized religious systems.

JD Miller wrote: I don’t see a lot of push to bring the Christian religion into public schools.

I’m not sure how to parse ‘a lot.’ It looks like a lot to me, but it’s probably more of an increase of kind than quantity, and I think context adds to the weight of it. Context: there is so much more sectarian religious talk in this administration vs. past ones, including conservative administrations, going back decades. Hegseth, Vance, Rubio: each of them has probably tripled the ‘specifically Christian public rhetoric in official capacity’ quotient. Add them up, and it’s no wonder non-Christians are feeling a bit panicky at times. Then you have Trump, who can only be said to be frequently attempting uniquely Christian public rhetoric in official capacity. He can’t usually get it right. But religious sectarianism seems to usually be his intent.

I don’t think that has much upside, given the mountains and rivers that are part of our reality now.

Context: there is so much more sectarian religious talk in this administration vs. past ones, including conservative administrations, going back decades. Hegseth, Vance, Rubio: each of them has probably tripled the ‘specifically Christian public rhetoric in official capacity’ quotient. Add them up, and it’s no wonder non-Christians are feeling a bit panicky at times. Then you have Trump, who can only be said to be frequently attempting uniquely Christian public rhetoric in official capacity. He can’t usually get it right. But religious sectarianism seems to usually be his intent.

I don’t think that has much upside, given the mountains and rivers that are part of our reality now.

I am understanding more and more where there seems to be so much disconnect in thinking among participants on this site. SI is a Christian site with Christian values yet, it appears this comment is saying that people in government promoting ideas of Christianity is a serious problem. (If I misunderstood please clarify). I understand concerns about people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk when it comes to Christian words and I have no problem with pointing out hypocrisy among people like our president. What I do not understand are those who claim to be Christian and yet promote the silencing of Christianity.

I don’t know where the Bible says we are supposed to use the government to promote the faith. Maybe you can help me with that?

When I look at Matthew 28, I see instruction to go and make disciples given to the church, not the government. When I look at Romans 13, I see government ordained by God to administer justice, not proclaim the Faith.

So, there are several pieces to my perspective on the question.

• Scripture: the only ultimately authoritative piece
• History: the idea that government and the church have separate spheres under God is a very old idea—among Christians, not among people trying to silence Christianity.
• Conditions on the ground: we do not live in a place where the only choices are to speak with a sectarian voice in high office or work to silence Christianity.

A lot more could be said about that third bullet.

It’s a bit strange to see the centuries-old Christian idea of separating the roles of church and state as if it were a non-Christian perspective. I suggest reading up.

But as for the unique relationship the U.S. has had with the Christian faith, it’s long been our tradition for leaders in high office to see themselves as the servants of everyone in the country, not just those who share their particular faith and to speak in somewhat vague terms when they speak religiously—in order to not show preference for a particular religion. There have been exceptions of course.

Here’s a reality we need to take seriously: Eventually the current group of evangelical/catholic leaders will be replaced. Americans will eventually elect persons who are openly Muslim, Buddhist, and other religions. It will happen unless Jesus returns first. What do we want ‘the rules of public discourse’ to be then?

We should advocate for the same rules now.

I have been studying the book of Ezra and multiple Persian king acknowledged the God of Israel. Do you think that was bad as well?

Here’s a reality we need to take seriously: Eventually the current group of evangelical/catholic leaders will be replaced. Americans will eventually elect persons who are openly Muslim, Buddhist, and other religions. It will happen unless Jesus returns first. What do we want ‘the rules of public discourse’ to be then?

Do you seriously think that if a Muslim was elected that he would be quiet about his faith if Christians had been quiet about theirs? Have you been watching elected Muslims and what they are saying? Are you suggesting that if a Christian is elected to a government position that they should no longer talk about their faith? Were King Darius and King Artaxerxes terrible for talking about the true God?

JD Miller wrote: I have been studying the book of Ezra and multiple Persian king acknowledged the God of Israel. Do you think that was bad as well?

Religious freedom was not a thing back then. But I’m not talking about ‘acknowledging.’ U.S. Presidents and cabinet members have ‘acknowledged’ God in lots of ways throughout our history. They have not all meant the same thing by ‘God,’ but it’s also likely that Nebuchadnezzar and Aretexerxes and others in the OT didn’t either.

I don’t know what that proves one way or the other.

In the U.S., we were founded with the idea of religious liberty being a key foundational principle. At the time, there wasn’t much religious diversity to shape how that played out, though it at least meant Protestants didn’t insist on Protestant distinctives and Catholics likewise. And there were Jewish communities early on also.

The founders were not idiots, and it wouldn’t have taken a lot of imagination to see that eventually the country would be far more religiously diverse. The idea from day one was that they would be free to practice their faith and the government would not privilege one religious group or belief system over another.

The details were messy and still are.

But I don’t think I was unclear. What’s been happening in this administration is not just a lot more ‘God talk,’ than usual, but a lot more specifically evangelical talk and overt identification of policies as God’s policies, and Christian policies, and those who oppose them as being aligned with the Devil and demons and so on. Trump, Vance, Rubio, Huckabee, Hegseth and others have repeatedly cast policy debates in spiritual warfare terms with the Christian faith and the Christian God on their side and all who disagree being on the other side.

This is not the same thing at all as a Christian statesman being open about his faith, acknowledging God, etc. It is categorically different.

JD Miller wrote: Do you seriously think that if a Muslim was elected that he would be quiet about his faith if Christians had been quiet about theirs?

I do not think that whether other people will do right is how Christians are supposed to decide if they will do right. This is about respecting fellow humans and fellow-Americans in their right to choose their beliefs. But as Christians, we don’t adopt the standard other people are likely to adopt. We adopt the standard they ought to adopt. Matt 5.16, Php 2.15, 1 Pet 2.12 etc.

But you raise a good point, just not the one you intended, I think. Precedent is powerful. When a President smashes a precedent, those after him are likely to disregard it as well. Because a precedent that is discarded is replaced with a new one. The whole “well they did it first/will certainly do it eventually, so we should do it too” ethic only leads to accelerating downward spiral. How could it not?

So, is your solution to have no Christian influence in government? Is it for Christians to just stay out of elected office and let others in? Or is it for Christians to be elected but to make sure they are silent about their faith and to make sure they do not make any decisions based on their faith? I understand that there will be those elected that do not share my faith tradition but who will govern based on their faith. I have watched that play out my whole life as I a non-Catholic have watched Catholic people in government. I recognize that their faith will effect how they govern. I recognize the same about a Muslim. Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. You seem to have misunderstood that.

Either homeschool or private!

JD Miller wrote: So, is your solution to have no Christian influence in government?

You don’t seem to be reading what I’m writing.

“Influence” is not what we’ve been talking about. That’s a lot more than ‘rhetoric by public officials.’ Where influence comes from:

• Your beliefs and values shape your emphases/priorities as a leader
• Your beliefs/values/faith determine your ethical boundaries: the methods and means to ends that are excluded or permitted
• Your faith influences your relationships and how you treat your colleagues and subordinates and, at that level, the public
• Your faith should come out in your public discourse—but in government, always in a way that is clearly respectful of other people’s religious beliefs

In the case of our Christian faith, the concept of genuine personal belief is central to it. We don’t see faking it as having value. That demands the freedom to choose it or not choose it. So, for Christians, more than some other religions, religious freedom is paramount. We not only don’t want to force people into professions they don’t mean, we don’t want to build resentments by showing favoritism to people who profess the faith. What “favoritism” means depends a lot on the context. If you’re a government official pushing policy, or making decision on behalf of a large, diverse constituency, it’s a different thing from choosing teachers to staff a Christian school.

So, as I think has already been very clear in this discussion, I’m all for influence. Influence—at least the positive kind—doesn’t come from bullying people, disrespecting people, or claiming exclusive (and often transparently dubious) divine authority for your views. What that feeds is a lot of resentment—and not the ‘offense of the gospel’ kind—and it puts a stink on our Christian faith by association. (2 Sam 12.14 NKJV comes to mind… contrast Titus 2.10, 1 Pet 2.12) (Edit: Because of the scribal thing in 2 Sam 12.14, maybe Ezek 36.20 is a better OT example of the idea. It is usually put positively, make the faith look good, rather than negatively, stop making the faith look bad. Titus 2.5… lots of others.)

Darrell McCarthy wrote: Either homeschool or private!

I really think these are still better options for Christians—but really for anyone who wants to raise their child in way that their perspective on all of life integrates with the worldview of their faith. A government school in a religiously diverse country with religious liberty is going to have to be pretty limited, though I do think it can be better than it is now. You can be religion-friendly without favoring a particular religion over others. So I guess I’m saying I don’t think “Christian” and “aggressively secular” are the only options.