Category: Uncategorized

  Our Board Member (also AU national treasurer), Brian Kaylor, is coauthor with Beau Underwood of a new book about religious freedom in America.  The full title is “Baptizing America: How Mainline Protestants Helped Build Christian Nationalism”. It provides the AU perspective on the alarming growth of Christian Nationalism. Its thesis is that Christian Nationalism is not just a recent aberrant creation of the right wing, but a consequence of years and decades of encroachment on religious freedom by organizations that are often viewed as benign, the “apple pie” denominations such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. The narrative is very up-to-date, but also provides the history of the foundational events that have led to our current uncomfortable situation.  The book is published by Chalice Press and is available everywhere.

This well-crafted op-ed appeared in the Sunday, November 27 edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  It was written by Gray Fuller, a senior at John Burroughs School.  The link is here.

Church/state lawyer Andrew Seidel has a new book out, “American Crusade: How The Supreme Court is Weaponizing Religious Freedom”. Mr. Seidel explains in detail, with deep understanding and numerous examples, the dangerous perversion of the First Amendment that SCOTUS has promulgated.  The thesis of the book is identical to the AU viewpoint, and will give you all the talking points you will need for your next cocktail party arguments.

I learned about the book because of the “Opening Arguments” podcast, an enthusiasm that I recently learned that I share with AU President Rachel Laser. The 11/1 episode that includes an interview with Mr. Seidel is linked here.

The picnic was at Deer Creek Park (also known as Rocket Park) – North Pavilion, in Maplewood. We provided sandwiches, beverages, and dessert to a good crowd.

Mr. Wolff was on the faculty at St. Louis University for 23 years before he was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court, where he served from 1998 to 2011, and Chief Justice from 2005 to 2007. After his stint on the Supreme Court, he returned to SLU and was Dean of the Law School until 2017., and still has an Emeritus appointment. He has spoken to us before, and is always an engaging speaker.

E. J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post columnist and Professor of Government at Georgetown University, published an inciteful commentary on the Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Click here to link to the column, which appeared on August 3.

(Sponsor  of this bill is [D]Senator Karla May)

Dear Senator:

As an ordained Baptist Minister and an Attorney, I share my thoughts with the Education Committee in opposition to Senate Bill 323.  Even under the guise of being an “elective” course this legislation presents a variety of problems.  To start with the bill is clearly drafted from a “Christian” perspective.  It does not originate from a perspective of “religious neutrality” and therefore fails to be accommodating of “diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of students” in public schools.  This being the language provided in the bill.  Furthermore, it appears the basis for the legislation is an ill-conceived and erroneous concept that American culture somehow flows from a Christian evangelical or fundamentalist biblical worldview.

The bill erroneously refers to the “Hebrew Scriptures” as the “Old Testament of the Bible.”  A clear and exclusively “Christian” designation.  The Hebrew Scriptures, i.e., Jewish Bible, has a name.  It is not the “Old Testament”, only we Christians use that term.  The Hebrew Scriptures are the Tanakh.  This Christian labeling of these Scriptures provides the clear indication that the “elective” course is intended as one presented from a Christian, not a neutral perspective.

One must reasonably question how many social studies teachers (if any) possess the requisite education and training in Hebrew or Christian Scriptures to lead a class intended to instruct in “biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives.”  The couching of these concepts under the claim of being “prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture”, begs the question why such a course would only be an elective?  It is difficult to see how that writings from 2,000 to 4,000 or more years ago from ancient middle eastern cultures provide a basis for understanding 21st Century American “literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy.”

As Biblical scholars understand, any attempt to study the content, characters, poetry, and narratives of the Christian Bible or the Tanakh, absent an understanding of the religious underpinnings of these aspects, is simply not good scholarship and instruction, and hardly qualifies as worth the time expended in such an effort.

All the suggested purposes for this legislation have been addressed throughout our nation’s history by the simple means of Jewish and Christian congregations through worship and the study of their respective scriptures.  This continues to be the case, as week after week, synagogues, temples, and churches provide worship and learning opportunities for any who are interested.  The legislation is quite simply an attempt under the subterfuge of authorizing an “elective” high school social studies course to move Christian faith, doctrine and teachings from the local church building into the public school.  It is unnecessary, as there is virtually not a community in our state where interested high school students can not find a local Christian congregation to receive instruction in the Bible.  Furthermore, the multitude of Internet sites from which students may research all aspects of Biblical teachings goes beyond the thousands.

For many of us who are people of faith, reducing the Christian Bible to simply a social studies class is demeaning not only to the Bible, but also to observant Christians.

I suggest there are much more important educational issues before the Missouri General Assembly in 2021, than attempting to turn public school class rooms into Sunday School classes.  Christian religious instruction can and should be left to local churches, not to local public schools.

Douglas Laycock’s op-ed on this subject appeared in the Saturday, 10/10 NYT.  Click here to read the essay.

Our former Board member, Helene Sherman, had her Letter to the Editor published today.  Here it is:
Within guidelines, students are allowed to pray in school
Regarding “Prayer in school would solve many problems” (June 2): The letter writer made some factual errors.

Students are, in fact, legally allowed to pray in school because of a 1962 Supreme Court ruling (Engel v. Vitale). However, because a founding principle of this country is the separation of church and state, schools may not prohibit students from praying voluntarily as long as it is done silently, does not disrupt others, and does not subject other students to peer pressure. Teachers may not proselytize to their students for any religion during the school day.

There also is no evidence that student prayers help prevent uncivil behavior. The roots of such behavior are complex, deep and wide ranging. Certainly, schools face multiple challenges today in terms of student learning, but asking students to pray is not a proven cure. Teaching students more history, problem solving, reasoning skills, government and scientific facts are worthwhile goals that more effectively contribute to the betterment of everyone in our society.

Helene Sherman Creve Coeur