I Cogitate

Academy to Get a Checkup on Tolerance
A task force will look into charges that evangelical Christian Air Force staff and cadets are unfair to those with other beliefs.
By David Kelly
Times Staff Writer
May 4, 2005

DENVER ­ - The U.S. Air Force, responding Tuesday to allegations of religious intolerance, announced the creation of a task force to investigate the spiritual climate at the Air Force Academy.

The decision comes after complaints about proselytizing and harassment by evangelical Christian cadets and staffers of those of other faiths ­ or those whose Christian beliefs do not mirror their own.

Last week, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group based in Washington, released a report on cases of alleged religious insensitivity at the academy and sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that raised the possibility of a lawsuit.

Barry W. Lynn, the group's executive director, said the situation was one of the worst he'd ever seen in a military setting.

"Americans United will continue to closely monitor this situation to ensure that the religious freedom rights of all cadets at the academy are respected," Lynn said in a statement Tuesday. "It is vital that the task force take this issue seriously and end the official promotion of evangelical Christianity at the academy."

The Air Force's deputy chief of staff for personnel, Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, will head the group ­ which will include members of the chaplain service, the Department of Defense, military attorneys and possibly outside organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League.

The task force will examine academy policy and training on religious tolerance, how well complaints are addressed, practices that enhance or detract from a climate of religious diversity and whether the problems extend through the entire Air Force. The task force is to report misconduct to the relevant authorities.

"These allegations are being taken seriously," said Jennifer Stephens, an Air Force spokeswoman.

The Air Force said there had been "considerable efforts" made to create a more tolerant environment after 55 complaints over the last four years at the academy.

The complaints included allegations that Jewish students were harassed or insulted, that those of other faiths were not given the same latitude in exercising their religion and that some chaplains urged cadets to tell those not "born again" that they faced "the fires of hell." Academy teachers also were said to have promoted their faith in class and invited cadets to church.

About 90% of the 4,300 cadets at the Colorado Springs, Colo., campus are Christian.

May 4, 2005
Teacher crossed line with religious materials
A DISTRICT'S AUTHORITY: SCHOOL PRINCIPAL MADE CLEAR TO HIM WHAT WAS PERMISSIBLE
San Jose Mercury News Editorial

When a born-again Christian fifth-grade teacher sued his principal and the Cupertino Union School District for screening his classroom materials, politically conservative commentators feasted on distortions.

You'd have thought that the district, with atheistic relish, had expunged all references to religion and even banned the Declaration of Independence from Stevens Creek Elementary. That's what the legal foundation representing teacher Stephen Williams claimed in a sensational press release that set off an uproar on talk radio and cable talk shows.

Now that U.S. District Court Judge James Ware has thrown out three of four claims that Williams made, at least it has become clear what the case was never about:

• There was no basis for the claim that the district violated Williams' rights of free speech and religious expression.

In his ruling last week, Ware noted that courts have ruled unequivocally that school districts, not individual teachers, have authority to decide what can be taught and what materials can be used in school.

• There was no basis for the claim that the district was hostile to religion because Patricia Vidmar, the principal, prohibited supplementary materials Williams wanted to use, including an ``Easter Activity Sheet.''

The district didn't ban teaching about religion. The state American history curriculum for fifth grade, which the district follows, includes an understanding of how religious ideas helped bring about the Revolution. But Vidmar had a responsibility to ensure that Williams didn't let his own personal religion color how history was taught.

• There was no basis in claiming that the district's policy regarding the use of supplementary materials was vague.

Ware found this claim ``disingenuous,'' since Stephens acknowledged that Vidmar made it clear which materials were permissible and which weren't.

There may be a basis to Williams' allegation that the school discriminated against him because of his beliefs. Ware allowed that claim to move forward without considering whether there's merit to it. That stage will come next. When the facts come out, Williams will have a tough case to make.

Vidmar, a Christian herself, did treat Williams differently -- for good reason. His effusiveness about his religion made some students and fellow teachers uncomfortable. Some parents complained to her. She, in turn, directed him to run his supplementary classroom materials by her before using them.

She rejected those that were inappropriate for fifth-graders (selections from a complex 18th-century tract on natural law), those that were religious in nature (quotes from John Adams' diary with religious allusions) or partial to his views (what famous people said about the Bible).

Some of the individual materials might have been fine in the hands of another teacher. Collectively, they formed a pattern of pushing religion.

Vidmar reacted as a supervisor should: She reined in an employee who crossed the line from teacher to preacher.

The First Amendment protects the expression of religion. But it also requires that government -- and public schools -- not promote it.

May 4, 2005
ROLE OF RELIGION
San Jose Mercury News Editorial

Stevens Creek Elementary teacher Stephen Williams may have a point that the state's fifth-grade history curriculum and his district's McGraw-Hill textbook don't do justice to the role of religion in early America.

But in amplifying history, Williams misconstrued it. He rummaged through history and the Internet for sources that supported his own point of view.

The crux of his suit against the district was that his principal refused to let him pass out documents on the Founders' view of religion. They included selective quotes from John Adams' Diary, religious clauses in state constitutions, ``The First Prayer in Congress'' from 1774 and ``George Washington's Prayer Journal.''

Used by themselves, out of context, these documents presented an unbalanced view of the Founders' religious views. One is a fraud. The authenticity of Washington's ``Prayer Journal'' was discredited decades ago, according to editors at the official repository of Washington's papers at the University of Virginia.

The role of religion in early America, while strong, varied from colony to colony and over time. What is clear is that the Founders, as products of the Enlightenment, held very different views from the Puritans of the 17th century and from today's religious conservatives in Congress.

It's no coincidence that the Constitution makes no mention of God. James Madison kept his views to himself. Thomas Jefferson was a deist who believed in a mysterious Supreme Being but did not believe in Christ's resurrection. He saw Jesus as a prophet with valuable moral teachings.

Washington belonged to the Episcopal Church but did not take communion or kneel during services, as others did. His God was an unknowable Providence.

The Founders understood the importance of religious faith in guiding morality. But they were conscious of the sectarian wars that had ravaged Europe. That's why they wanted the federal government to keep its distance from religion.

Jefferson consciously omitted the subject of religion when, in 1817, he created a plan for public education in Virginia. Teach American, Greek and Roman history, instead of the Bible, he wrote, ``at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries.''

"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy...To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism..."

~ Barry Goldwater (1972)

 RSS feed