Women's Lives - Looking for the Middle

Women's Lives Pt. II - Women's Pain

Fugitive says that the Women's Movement has let her down.  The issues and goals of the 1960's are largely realized.  With people in their 20's and 30's, the gender gap is a non-issue.  We see men and women as equal in intellectual capacity, we see sexual harrassment as an evil to be avoided, we see affordable birthcontrol openly displayed in the aisles of Walmart, and we see it as self-evident that a woman's prior sexual history has no bearing on the act of rape.  In our generation, we live the hopes of the generation who fought very hard to secure these rights.  So why aren't we Feminists? 

Well, what is a Feminist anyway?  Thoughtful readers have suggested that anyone who believes in the statements of equality between the sexes that I've listed is a Feminist.  At one time those statements of equality were radical departures from the norm.  But that time has passed.  The term Feminist goes beyond belief in particular statements and implies social and political activism.  So before I define myself as a particular type of activist I want to know what the people at the center of that movement are acting for.  In my research last night (through questia.com) I scanned a smattering of books and articles released in the past year that deal with women's studies, gender issues, and Feminism.

I found articles that pointed out sexist terminology in biology texts used by med-schools to discuss the meeting of the egg and sperm.  I found articles articles on ecofeminism which equates the exploitation of "mother earth" with the exploitation of women, radical feminism which asks "is mothering in women's interests", and Marxist feminism which demands that we kill the "two headed beast of patriarchal capitalism".  There were articles that still in this day and age argue that the global answer to women's problems is access to abortion in terms that cast women and children as natural enemies. 

This is a silly argument to propose to the women in China who are routinely subjected to forced abortions, have their menstrual cyles charted on the village square and exercise what little choice they have to abort female babies in hopes that their next child will be a male.  The abortion of female babies in China and India has reached such an alarming rate that the natural ratio of 106 males to 100 females has been skewed so far as to produce 160 males per 8 females in the 1997 records from Shandong Province, China (pop. 13,345,000)

Remember the old Feminist slogan "the personal is political"?  Feminists used this slogan to empower women to activism, they pointed out that the difficulties faced by women weren't just "personal problems" they were the proper subject of political action.  Activism in the Feminist movement today judging by the articles published focuses on problems women faced in first world countries 40 years ago.

I'm not interested in denigrating work done on my behalf.  I appreciate it.  I'd like to say a hearty WELL-DONE to the sisters of previous generations of activists.  I hope they will do me the courtesy of listening when I say that their issues are not my issues.  I have issues.  It is not reasonable to answer my concerns with, "You have it better off than your ancestors, why can't you be happy?"

What changes would you make in regard to women?

I'll start:

• Medical research that focuses on women's health instead of assuming that what's good for the gander will suffice for the goose.

This is my second entry in an online discussion with my sister.  You can read her side here.  We are both excited and stimulated by the many points you raised yesterday in our respective comments section.  We hope you will continue to contribute, and that you will continue to be kind as we venture further into territory where we disagree with each other, and probably with many of our readers as well.

Women's Lives . . .

Fugitive and I talk a lot.  Recently, we've been talking about our lives as women and the roles we play.  How free are we to make and be responsible for our choices?  How much of an impact has the Women's Movement had on our lives?  We have different ideas about what it means to be a woman in today's world.  So I'm starting with my own story.

June 18, 1963 . . . It's a girl!  My parents brought me home, wrapped me in soft blankets and set about loving me to adulthood.  Growing up in the 1970's, it never occurred to me that there might be opportunities or choices forbidden me because of my sex.

I was in the honors program at my High School and became a National Merit Scholar.  As far as I was concerned when I left home I had not only the opportunity but the obligation to do something "significant."  I remember that a good friend of mine decided that she was going to be librarian.  I was appalled.  How could she waste herself that way?  She could have been a doctor or a lawyer or something really important.

I earned a Bachelor's in Business Adminstration which I have never used.  I graduated from a program that put it's focus on the bottom line.  Anything and everything could and should be sacrificed, time, family, resources, and ethics all went into the grinder of good business and cranked out profits.  As much as I disliked the philosophical underpinnings of my classes I liked my job as a Resident Assistant in the dorm.  My senior year, I spent my time in volunteer programs with Rape Crisis and working as a court appointed Big Sister to teens in trouble.  At that time I had fulfilled all but a few credit hours for my degree so I signed up for classes that intrigued me.  Philosophy, history, science, and political science.  By the time I walked off the campus for the last time, I wanted nothing to do with corporate life but I was afire with ideas and concepts fo changing the world, one person at a time. 

I felt that I could do or be anything I wanted.  Through jobs that offered inservice training and some post-graduate work, I qualified to work in adolescent psychiatry.  In the last of my six years in this field, I partnered with a Social Worker to create a therapy group for patients who had been sexually abused.  Researching current hypothesis and treatment methods, I had my first brush with Official Feminist Theory.  In my opinion then and now, the offerings from the official women's organizations were the least helpful.  Feminists focused on a vaguely defined 'Patriarchy' as the root cause of sexual violation with a pessimistic view that there was no individual recovery as long as the society and culture in which we live continues to be "man-centered".  Writers such as Andrea Dworkin and Susan Faludi who railed against men and pornography, and defined all heteresexual sex as rape. They considered any criticism to be a sign of "backlash" against their obviously correct reading of the situation.  They derided women who fought to live their lives on equal terms with men as collaborators.  

Feminists seemed to have much in common with right wing reactionaries.  They did a lot of yelling, they spewed a lot of indignation about the unfairness of the world.  The feminism I encountered was anti-male, anti-pornography, and victim centered. I felt no anger toward the men in my life, the anti-pornography stand conflicted with my ideas about free speech, and I didn't feel vicitmized.   Feminist writers faced with critique from people with my views responded that we were simply misinformed and naive, which I found to be an insulting evasion of the real concerns of women. 

Many feminist notions struck me as contradictory and silly.  They seemed to define womanhood as much by who I slept with as any other yardstick.  Since I slept with my husband, I was a traitor of the worst kind, a married heterosexual.

I became one of those women who says, I believe in equal opportunity for employment and education.  I believe in the right to accessible birth control.  I believe in paid family leave for both men and women.  I believe that families should have affordable childcare, and health insurance.  I believe that women have the right to work free from fear of sexual harrassment.  I believe women have the right to bring rape charges without their sexual history being used against them.  I believe that people's wages should be reflective of the profits generated by the business they are in, not the pittance left over after the top executives and shareholders have ransacked the general fund.  But, I refuse to call myself a feminist.

Fast-forward to my life, today.  I'm a Stay At Home Mom, Homeschooling my kids.  For me the decision to leave the workforce and devote myself to my family was a weird one to say the least.  Remember, I thought that a career as a librarian was a demeaning capitulation to a stereotypical role.  In my first years out of the workforce I felt a need to keep my head down and mumble when people asked me what I do.  Wouldn't you expect based on the externals of my life, that my view would be the conservative, traditional one.  Instead, I'm a champion of rights.  

In my conversation with Fugitive last week, I was shocked that she expressed great anger over the impact of feminism on her life.  She can tell her story much better than I can, so I'll leave that part to her.  One thing that she said got my attention.  She pointed out that as a well-educated woman, married to a man who makes a decent living, the women's movement made it possible for me to choose whether I would work or stay home.  She sees my view of a woman's choice to work as a romanticized vision divorced from the real life trap that many women (including herself) find themselves in.  If she didn't work, her family couldn't afford basic housing, medical care, or other necessities.

She sees herself as outside the women's movement for entirely different reasons than I do.  She says that feminists are weathy women who have the luxury of being concerned over the message of films and books that she nor any of her friends are likely to ever see or read.  The gains of feminism, (legalized abortion and careers for women,) put her in a position where the subtle message is "you didn't have to have those kids, but since you did, caring for them is your problem and not our concern." 

She and I have talked a lot about the differences between homeschool and public school.  She feels she has no choice but to send her kids to Public schools.  She can neither quit her job, nor afford to send them to Private schools.  She's facing the reality of a world in which economics is a much bigger concern than Nike commercials.  Educational opportunity sounds like a great thing, but she doesn't know how she can pay to send her kids to college when she can barely pay to clothe them for elementary school. 

Is women's rights a dead issue?  Or worse is it an issue that rose just long enough to make the lives of real women far worse than the lives, circumscribed as they were, of our mothers and grandmothers?  Has reproductive rights been translated into blame toward those families who choose to have children?  Has legalized abortion made children and mothers adversaries of men and employers?

In 1970, the year that Fugitive was born, the bottom 20 percent of families received 5.4 percent of the national income, by 1994 their share had fallen to 4.2 percent.  This is in spite of an increase from 20% of married women with children working full-time in 1970 to 60% in 1994.   In 1970 the typical CEO of a Fortune 500 company earned 35 times the wage of the average manufacturing employee.  By 1994 the ration was 187 to 1.  In the same time period the middle class shrank from 57 to 47 percent of the population.  I haven't found figures for the past eight years but all the discussion of the recession indicates that they are the bleak continuation of the trend.

So for completely different reasons, neither I nor my sister see ourselves as feminists, nor do we identify with the concerns of feminist leaders.  Neither of us are satisfied with the state of the world in which we try to live as women, although I'm admittedly more content than my sister.  Over the next few days we are going to open our Xanga blogs and admit you into the discussion we have regarding the issues we face.  Please comment, raise issues, ask questions, and generally feel free to participate in our talk.  We ask only that you remember that this isn't an academic discussion.  We look forward to your opinions with respect and interest but do not intend this discussion to be a debate. 

My bad, I accidentally submitted the rough draft of this blog earlier, so those of you who receive posts in your email are getting two versions.  Please pay no attention to the blog behind door number one. 

Sunny Sunday -

We just finished lunch.  Tim is outside mowing our grass for wha we hope will be the last time this year.  The boys are outside playing in the sandbox.  I'm feeling contented and lazy. 

For our lunch today we had a dish with no name that I'm aware of.  I'll call it:

Brunch Pie

Ingredients:
     Spaghetti noodles (16 oz package, broken into thirds)
     Butter (2 T)
     Flour (2 T)
     Evaporated milk
     Egg (beaten)
     Ham (1 1/2 c diced)
     Frozen peas (3/4 c)
     Red Bell Pepper (one whole diced pepper)
     Mushrooms (8 ounces, sliced)
     Grated Parmesan or Asiago Cheese (6 ounces)
     Crushed Croutons

Prepare spaghetti noodles as directed on the package.  Drain, but don't rinse.  Grease one 9x13 casserole dish.  Place pasta in the dish.

In a heavy skillet over very lo heat, melt two T butter.  Add 2 T flour and stir until flour is cooked and just beginning to brown.  Then add one can of evaporated milk.  Continue to stir until the sauce is smooth.  Slowly add beaten egg and continue to stir until sauce thickens slightly.  Increase heat to medium then add ham, peas, pepper, and mushrooms.  When sauce is hot add cheese.

Pour sauce over noodle 'crust'.  (You can freeze the dish at this point) Before serving, top with crushed croutons and bake at 350 degrees until hot.

I'm thinking a lot about the upcoming series of blogs I'm planning to call A Woman's Life.  My Mother was kind enough to share her thoughts on the impact of the women's movement on her life, looking back from her perspective as a 61 year old retiree.  Of course, I have the input of Fugitive who's original conversational tidbits prompted the topic.  I expect this will be some kind of fun and I'm hoping that you are ready to chime in with your own thoughts, observations and experience.  It wouldn't be a scientific survey, but I believe we'll be able to raise pertinent issues for discussion.

Friday Fun ...

I like Fridays.  I especially like Fridays which are also paydays.  Like today! 

The boys and I have people to see, bills to pay, and groceries to shop for.  It isn't nearly as bad now as it used to be, but for a time the dinner hour around my house drove me nuts.  I hated having to divide my attention between kids and cooking.  As soon as they sensed I wasn't right on top of things they were in trouble.  Playing wedding and throwing rice in the livingroom kind of trouble.  In the past I have resorted to the kind of meal planning where I cook everything on one day and freeze it.  Then for the next two weeks, all I have to do for dinner is warm it up, add a veggie or salad, slice some bread, and there you go. 

Now that they are older I don't have to rely on my shortcuts in the kitchen as often as I used to.  But we have found that we like it when dinner is ready, the prep time is minimal, and the menu is preplanned.  We save money when we do it this way because I'm not floundering and running to the store to get ingredients for whatever we are in the mood for, I bought it all at once and there it is.

On a 'cooking day' I prepare 6-8 pounds of hamburger, boil and debone a couple of chickens and divide a ham into meal-sized portions.  I combine the meats with veggies, rice, pasta, sauces, whatever I need to complete the meal.  The new ziploc storage containers make it easy to freeze whole meal packages even for a family with two growing boys.  Michael and I are going to use our school time today to plan a couple weeks worth of healthy menus, then we'll shop for ingredients this afternoon.  Tomorrow, we'll cook. 

My sister and I have been talking lately about women, the rights of women, the role of women, and the impact of feminism on our lives.  She would like me to write about these things, and I think I will - next week.  I turned it over in my mind a couple of times last night, and I just don't think I can get it all in a few paragraphs, so I'll spread out our conversation over a couple of days.  You guys will get a peek into the kinds of things that Fugitive and Quiltnmomi talk about.  It's a rollercoaster sometimes.  But, it's rarely boring.

Had a busy week?  Do you fear that you missed the best of Xanga for the past week?  Today is the day the Fuego releases her weekly ZangaZine.  This is a highlight of my Friday that I started looking forward to on Wednesday.

All Things Being Equal ...

You guys had great ideas and suggestions yesterday.  So I'm going to hope that you'll open your lifebooks today and give me a bit more wisdom on this parenting thing.

Tim and I are hoping to pass on our values to the boys.  We aren't feminists, we find that today's feminist movement is only slightly less preoccupied by all things phallic than a three year old male in potty training.  We aren't traditionalists, we find that stereotypical gender roles are both retrictive and demeaning to both all.  We aren't humanists, that term has been co-opted by those who view man as the measure of all things, and we find that measuring stick woefully inadequate.

I already blew it with the boys last Spring when we went to pick out new bedding.  But, I'd really like them to get the notion that rather than seeing life as divided into realms of "girl stuff" and "boy stuff" it's all just "stuff."  Some people prefer some stuff and other people prefer different stuff, but everyone prefers something and whether you are a boy or a girl doesn't matter in the pursuit of the stuff that will make you happy. 

We thoguht we were doing basicially pretty well, even taking into consideration my lapse last Spring.  About a month ago, we realized that our boys are getting ideas from somewhere that we haven't been aware of.  Tim and I decided to get our ears pierced.  I have lovely jewelry that I haven't been able to wear for almost ten years since I let my ears grow up.  Tim likes to wear an earring, he had one for years until he got a job where the suggestion was to lose it if he wanted to advance in the company.

The kids were with us when we stopped in at the Claire's and had it done.  They didn't pay hardly any attention to my getting the ears pierced, but they had a LOT to say about Daddy getting an earring.  "Daddy, this is silly, earrings are for girls!"  We were surprised, we were taken aback.  We laughed and said where did you get such an idea as that?

They didn't know why they thought it was inappropriate for Daddy to have an earring, it just was.  Now we homeschool the boys so one of us is with them 24/7/365.  (Although if anyone wants to volunteer to take them for a weekend, I'd be very happy to work that out.)  But, we hear the same messages they hear, and neither of us have ever heard anyone tell them overtly that earrings are only for women.  The family we hang out with most has a 15 year old son with a pierced ear.  My brother has a pierced ear.  There are old photos in all the albums of Tim with a pierced ear.  But, it really bothered them for a couple of days that Tim had done this thing.  We got through it, and I don't think they are still having any trouble with the idea, but I wonder what other ideas they have hidden inside. 

How do I go about teasing out the ideas that my kids are holding so that we can talk about them?  Or better yet, how do I go about sharing what Tim and I think without preaching to them or coercing them into mouthing ideas they don't accept for themselves?  I'm not interested in raising a kid to parrot what he thinks I want to hear - I'm after their hearts.

New Feature ...

I've been enjoying the logic puzzles that Sada posted on her page, so I've lifted them to my page.  The puzzle appears below the comment box when you click to leave a comment or eprop.  Thanks for the link Sada!

Many Thanks to Seanmeister ...

For the code to exchange the smileys

Am I Special ...

Tucker has taken up a new habit.  It's a nasty one.  He spits.  I hate it, his brother hates it, his dad hates it, even the dog has expressed an opinion about it.  We've talked with him, told him its nasty, told him it's disrespectful, and made him go to time-out in the corner when he does it.  Still, he spits.  Until Monday.

We weren't doing anything unusual.  Michael and I were working on math, Tucker was at the other desk creating a mobile (I think, it was a mobile, there was paper, strings, and a lot of glue involved).  Tucker decided to leave the room for a break, and on his way out, he spat at the floor.

He didn't even think about it.  He just hocked a big old loogie right there in front of God and everybody.  So I escorted him to the bathroom, telling him on the way how nasty this habit was.  To help him remember that nastiness is unpleasant, we washed his mouth with soap.  Now the nastiness is all cleaned out, and he has the experience of just what nastiness tastes like.  (okay, work with me here, I'm trying to get through to a five year old, and I never said the analogy was perfect.)

He cried.  He cried for long enough that he was excused to his bed where he could cry in peace.  Finally, with tears on his face, he came back to the schoolroom. 

"Momi, am I special?"

Yes, baby, you are special.

"Momi, I don't think special boys should get soap in their mouth.  I think that's what spankings are for."  He looked down at the floor for a minute, then he raised his head and glared at me.  "I'm mad at you for putting that soap in my mouth."

Baby, you are so special that I'm willing for you to be mad at me.  I want you to be the kind of person that other people will look at and say, 'there's a really special kid, he's kind, and respectful, I like having him around.'

He thought about it.  Then he climbed up in my lap. 

Some days, I like being Momi, but I really wish they could grow up and be wonderful humans without any unpleasantness along the way. 

I'm believe in creative parenting.  I especially like logical consequences.  Remember how I was having a problem with Tucker playing in the waterhose?  He played with the hose everytime he got outside.  Most of the time we caught it, but at least three times we didn't realize he had it running until the next morning.  Then I got the waterbill and it was 5 times the normal amount.  For the next four weeks, everytime Tucker asked for anything at the store - even a stick of gum, I said, "We spent all the money that we could have used for treats paying the waterbill.  Sorry."  (In this situation, Michael didn't get treats either, maybe that wasn't fair to Michael, but they share, so if Michael had gotten a treat, Tucker would have a loophole.)  As far as I know the water hose hasn't been played with since that bill came.  I just got the most recent bill, and it's back down to our standard $17. 

What's your favorite object lesson?  I'm ready to take notes.

Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You

True Story -

John was a doctoral candidate at an American university who's name shall be kept confidential.  A mathmetician, John's dissertation is on algorithms of long-range planning and prediction.  On the evening he was to defend his dissertation, the very first question asked, "John, I understand that you are a Christian.  How (in light of your religious beliefs in a Supernatural Being who can and does from time to time intervene in human affairs) can you personally place any confidence in the equations you have here presented?"

I've had a few years to think about this since Dr. John first described his experience.  My first reaction was "how unfair! if it's against the rules for a Christian to discuss his or her beliefs in a classroom, how is it fair to ask a Christian to defend his or her beliefs in a matter unrelated to theology - this was math we are talking about?  How did the man's religious beliefs have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not his equations worked."

Do you see the assumption that I have bought into? (which the professor was wise to reject.)  I had come to the place where I believed the fiction that it's possible to separate the realms of secular and sacred.  I reached this point through years of indoctrination.  I was born in 1963.  My mom was in labor on the day that the Supreme Court handed down it's decision banning school prayer.  I never attended a school where prayer was allowed or encouraged.  I never attended a school where discussion of religous belief was considered appropriate.  God help anyone who carried a Bible, or prayed quietly over lunch. 

I was present when a boy in my class bowed his head over that bizzare mystery meat pizza that smelled like rancid gym socks with a bit of barbeque.   If any food in the world could stand a little grace, the pizza at Smith Elementary certainly fit the bill.  (Can I get an Amen!?)  The teacher on duty leaned over and told Steve that it wasn't appropriate for him to pray at school in front of the others, but that if he wanted a few moments alone, she could arrange for him to leave the classroom a couple minutes early so he could pray before the rest of us arrived.  And that's what they did.  Steve left the classroom while the rest of us lined up and did whatever we did in preparation for the whole class marching down the hall.

In my high school classes on history, the faith of our fathers was mentioned but it was blanketed with commentary on the irony that the pilgrims who came here to establish religious freedom themselves enacted laws against dissent.  We discussed the many unreasonable laws they passed to cover situations which we in our enlightened state could clearly see were not the purview of the civil authority.  (Which BTW, is an inaccurate statement of the reasons the Pilgrims immigrated to American to start with, as well as an inaccurate portrayal of their behavior after they arrived.)  But at the time I didn't know that my history book was inaccurate, and I didn't recognize the use of the logical fallacy of the strawman.  That's my point.  I wasn't taught how to look at source documents, I wasn't taught to analyze the relationship between belief and behavior, I wasn't taught to apply the rules of historical analysis and logic to the information at hand.  I was preached to in the fashion made popular by propagandists 'r us the world over.  My grades were dependent upon my ability to regurgitate the facts and examples that were outlined in my book, and I made very good grades.

The rules of Secularism adopted by the Supreme Court and considered by the people who wrote and published textbooks failed in their intent to provide a neutral ground for teaching.  Whereas the school before 1963 both tacitly and overtly endorsed Protestant Christianity, the school after 1963 both tacitly and overtly endorses Secularism in a way that conflates the secular view to a religous system.  In history, in biology, in social studies, in every area, Secularism offers an alternative view to that of religious authorities on the questions of ultimate reality, the possibility of knowing, the nature of man, the purpose of history, the nature of Nature . . .  and while we were welcome to think the religious thing on the weekend, the message of Secularism is that the religious view offers nothing to public discourse.  Moreover, it is held to be an offense to the enlightened for a religious person bring religious talk to the table.  The doctrine of Secularism directly opposes religous freedom by establishing Secularism as the official values system of American Public life.

I have asked how can we affirm the religious freedom of the individual without delimiting the freedom of his neighbor.  I believe John's experience in his doctoral review is an excellent example of how religious freedom looks.  Asking people to behave in a way that is contrary to their most deeply held beliefs is nonsense.  The University Professor understood that John's religious views played a central role in his personal decision-making and those views would emerge in the interpretation of John's data whether John was aware of this or not.  So when he raised the spectre of religion, he had both a right and an obligation to ask John to defend his thesis on those grounds.  Religion has been an invisible dragon in the room of American education for 40 years.  It's time that we acknowledge it's presence and deal with religion in a respectful and appropriate manner.

Telling Theists that they can't pray when they have a desire to do so, telling an elementary child that he can't read from a religious text during a time set aside for free reading, telling a worker that she can't wear a religous symbol on her lapel - all because of the sensitivity of the others present doesn't work.  Don't ask, don't tell doesn't work.  The kind of tolerance that demands of some that they stand silent so that others will not be inconvenienced doesn't work.  The educated person knows that it is detrimental to ignore the factors that you don't like, feel comfortable with, or want to be true. 

Do you remember John Nash's realization in the film (or book) A Beautiful Mind?  His friends, all attrcted to the sae blonde, quote Adam Smith's economic theory that the bet outcome occurs when everyman does what is bet for himself.  The core of Nash's equilibrium is that each person must do what is best for himself AND the group.  As long as we see ourselves in a system in which one side will either win or lose, we are doomed to all lose.  In Nash's realization - no one gets the blonde or any of her friends under the competitive model.  In terms of worldview, this means that no one is ever going to convert all his friends and neighbors to his point of view (the blonde).  And, in the marketplace of ideas, everypoint of view that is excluded moves us further and further from living in peace (the friends of the blonde.) 

In practical application you may be shopping with a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Wiccan, or an Atheist all at the same time in the same store, but none of these people's views will spoil your milk.  When you attend a community event such as a high school graduation, members of that community may choose to freely exercise their religion by offering prayers of thanksgiving that little Johnny is getting close to gainful employment and an apartment of his own.  When you hire a person, you have no right to tell that person that she can't wear a pin in the shape of a religous symbol.  When a scientist looks at evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, it is not helpful to claim that the scientist owes it to a religious view to adjust his numbers to accommodate a literal Genesis interpretation.

The court standard that every piece of legislation must have a secular purpose is flawed.  Secular purpose doesn't equate with a neutrality, it favors a specific worldview over all others.  I am not asking or suggesting that we should go back to a time in which the teacher led prayer every morning.  As long as there are tests and beautiful blondes, kids will pray in school.  Prayer has been the focus of the argument in this country, but to center the discussion around prayer misses the point.  In the 1963 decision, the Justices talk a lot about original intent, they quote extensively from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and argue that he would never have endorsed religion in the classroom.

The amazing thing is that they were able to find passages in which Jefferson said anything about education that didn't specifically demand the inclusion of religion in the classroom.  Jefferson wrote a lot about education.  He was an educational theorist in the line of John Locke and stated often that the primary goal of education was to produce a "moral man."  He wrote letters of advice to young people and their parents about what they should read, in what order, and where they should go to school.  Always he included religious and moral instruction.  Jefferson wrote the Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship.  He said that church members are never merely Christians but are also members of society and as such they are entitled to all the rights enjoyed by their fellow citizens without respect to religious affiliation.  If a particular religious institution is removed from a position of direct government influence, free expression is promoted.  But, if members of that same organization are prohibited from influencing government in ways open to all other citizens, their freedom is proscribed.

One thing on which contemprary religious, and secular authorities agree is the break-down of moral understanding among today's citizens.  For example in one poll, 99% of respondents said it is wrong to steal.  When asked why it's wrong, over 70% of them said "Because you might get caught."  In a nation that presumes a moral awareness in its citizens, this number is frightening.  As frightening to me as the poll a few weeks back in which almost 50% of respondents said that the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing rights.  I don't want anyone who can't articulate why theft is wrong to be in charge of the IRS!

The only way to reverse this trend is to develop values-focused education.  I'm not saying that we should teach Christianity.  When any one group is favored in the process, everybody loses - no one gets the blonde.  The only way to succeed in the endeavor is if we all understand from the beginning that the blonde is not the goal.  Education is not about gaining converts for a particular view, but for education to be complete, it must include a values component.  I can construct a damn fine argument that concludes "murder is wrong" based on the logic of Theism.  Such an argument is also derived from principles of Monism, Buddhism, Toaism and New Age philosophy.  The argument is a little more difficult to make from a strictly secular viewpoint, in that case it comes down to law and order and there are serious problems with the attempt to assign value to order over individual action in secular ethics.  But, at this point we are all so afraid that one religous group or another is going to get a toehold, that we aren't teaching values, morals, or ethics at all.  We must begin to address the need for ethics in society.  We must include the religious views in the process.

It's time to stop acting like we're going to get cooties if we have to sit next to someone from a different religious tradition.

Each according to the dictates of his own conscience . . .

What is Religious Freedom?  What role does the state play in religious freedom?  In what way does state action serve to establish religion?  In what way does state policy serve to inhibit the free expression of religion?  What are we talking about when we refer to religion anyway?

In the past religion has been narrowly defined, my Oxford American Dictionary has as it's primary definition belief in the existence of a superhuman controlling power.  It only takes a cursory glance at the various religions represented in our country to recognize the inadequacy of this definition.  Eastern monists, Pantheists and others make up a significant percentage of our population, but don't believe in a "superhuman controlling power."  I doubt that anyone would be sucessful in an attempt to persuade them that they weren't religions.  The second definition offered in the dictionary is a particular system of faith and worship.  Worship is defined as devotion to a particular person, thing, or idea.  This is the definition I will be using when I speak of religion. 

Sometime back I wrote a LONG blog on the various worldviews that compete for ascendancy in the contemporary marketplace of ideas.  It is easy to villify the people of one view or tradition as being intolerant of the others, but in actual fact they are each intolerant in the areas they hold to be objective truth.  Denial of these very real differences prevents constructive dialogue on the issue of religious freedom.

In 1967 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr issued one of his greatest challenges to the nation, with a small book, Where Do We Go From Here, Chaos or Community?  In that book he told a story that was really a parable of his life's work:

Some years ago a famous novelist died.  Among his papers was found a list of suggested plots for future stories, the most prominently underscored being this one:  "A widely separated family inherits a house in which they have to live together."  This is the great new problem of mankind.  We have inherited a large house, a great "world house" in which we have to live together - black and white, Eastern and Western, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Muslim and Hindu - a family unduly separated in ideas, culture, and interests, who because we can never again live apart must learn to somehow live with each other in peace.

The question of religious liberty today is the same it has been since the first Puritans immigrated to the colony established by Separatists, how can we live together in peace?  Do we accept that we have one seat at a table of diverse ideas, do we petition for the chance to withdraw from the table and be alone, or do we try to gain control of the table.  In the past, the strategy of all groups has been to dominate the others and legislate the outward forms of the dominate viewpoint.  We have good reason to fear the outcome of any group gaining control of the table, but we may be deceiving ourselves about who currently holds the upper hand in the policy making formula.

Up until 1963, there is no question that the foundation of law and policy was Protestant Christianity.  In 1963 the Supreme Court handed down a decision that changed the legal presumptive view.  In the case of Murray v. Curlett, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading and Prayer were unconstitutional activities in Public School classrooms.  The interesting thing to me is the language on which the justices based their decision.  They set as an litmus test that "to withstand the strictures of the Establisment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion." {emphasis added}  The rule of Protestant Theism was replaced by the rule of Secularism and it is by this rule that the Court has been guided ever since.

Included in the 1963 decision is the explanation that this standard is "neutral."  But is it?  Neutrality is a slippery concept.  As people we tend to view anything that is not for us as against us.  Thus, one person's neutrality is another person's religion.  Recent scholarship has exposed the fiction of value-free neutrality.  A quick trip to a good library will unearth hundreds if not thousands of articles and books discussing the impossibility of a value-free anything. 

Moreover, the Court has become increasingly divided on questions of religious freedom.  Supreme Court decisions are never light reading but they currently border on comedic with their many twists and turns.  Most decisions in the past decade have been a 5-4 split.  Within that split there are further splits with various justices dissenting from portions of the view they sided with in the decision.  In addition, the Court has taken the unusual step of reversing itself on previously decided cases involving religious freedom and establishment. 

We have seen a majority vote in the House of Representatives on a Constitutional Amendment to support the practice of voluntary prayer in public schools.  The minority view expressed by Justice O'Connor in the 1992 case of Lee v. Weisman has been read and repeated "To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism [public prayer] in order to spare the [dissenter] what seems to be the minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation is senseless."  Across our nation on September 11 of this year we saw prayer after prayer offered by public officials in their official capacity. 

National non-compliance with Secularism has become the rule that the Constitutional Amendment on Prayer sought to legalize.  Evidence introduced to Congress includes data on the widespread misunderstanding of First Amendment support for free exercise resulting in discrimination against religious speech.   Secularism is not neutral and has not produced an atmosphere of free exercise.  The rule of Secularism has changed the battle from one between Christian sects to Christian vs Secular, but as I noted above, this is inadequate in today's multicultural environment.

I really like the comments left on yesterday's blog.  Christy says that she learned at an apologetics conference to learn, know, and be aware of her own beliefs.  Be ready to answer if someone asks a question about belief.  But, avoid any temptation to manipulate or coerce another into accepting a systen of belief.  Francis says that is important to move beyond tolerance to acceptance and understanding.  I believe that this is possible.  Tomorrow I'm going to go a little further out on this limb and talk about what that kind acceptance looks like and how we can get there from here.

E Pluribus Unum Vs. Multicultural Reality

From the inception of our nation, we embraced an uncomfortable notion, "out of many - one."  The American Experiment demands that each generation redefine the "one" into which we are United.  Early on, there was an understanding that the "one" was the worldview of Protestant Christianity.  Oh, yeah, we had that first amendment thing about Freedom of Religion, but no one involved understood that as a referent to anything other than freedom to choose your own denomination of Protestant Christianity. 

Even as the Constitution was ratified, three of the original thirteen states had laws on the books disallowing Catholic Christians from holding public office, exercising the vote, and entering certain professions.  Several states aligned themselves officially with a particular denomination and the phrase "Congress shall make no law" was seen as endorsing the right of states to affirm their religious conviction and affiliation without Federal interference. 

When Horace Mann toured New England in promotion of his "Common School" plan, he assured one and all that the schools would teach Christianity through daily reading of the Bible without note or commentary.  In Mann's opinion, this completely addressed any possible concerns various religious groups might raise.  In actual fact, it touched off the first of an unending series of public policy debates about the relationship between common culture and private conviction.

200 years down the road the question remains to vex us and demand that we bring thoughtful consideration to the table of discussion.  How can we be "one" when we are so "many?"  What is it that unites us and can we be united without being unanimous in our worldview.  What commonality bonds the rural farmer to his urban counterpart?  What statute offers the fundmentalist and the atheist equal protection under the law?  What tax structure best protects one individual's right to property while also providing for the needs of those who are the poorest and least able to care for themselves and their families?  What lending policy will best accomplish the goal of helping developing nations without imposing American cultural values on those with differing conviction?  These are questions that every nation will face in some form or another through the 21st century. 

Nowhere is the dilemma of public vs. private more emotionally charged than the arena of religious freedom, the subject of Norman Rockwell's fourth freedom painting.  I was thinking when I sat down here that I would be writing my ideas on religious freedom and ending last week's series. 

Instead, my mind has been turning over the concepts of "public" vs. "private."  The word public refers to a people with common interests or characteristics.  How can we be a public when we are all so different?  Does cultural cohesion demand that the individual conscience be subsumed by the tyranny of the majority voice?  What if there is no majority voice?  Without a clear majority, and social scientists tell us that within the next 25 years there will be no single constituency (by which I'm referring to ethnic, racial, cultural, language, or religious groups) comprising a clear majority of the public, is the house doomed to fall apart?

I hold it as self-evident that each individual has the right to decide religious conviction for himself.  But, the very tolerant sounding muliculturalism preached in the marketplace seems often to be a thin mask hiding an agenda to limit my religious freedom by insisting that I behave according to a standard, a worldview which I reject.  Maybe the first paragraph of my Religious Freedom essay is that I am learning to dissent.  I am a conscientious objector to the notion of cultural "tolerance" as the highest virtue.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Fear, and Freedom from Want, these have played out in my life as a journey to the place where I own them for myself.  I have had to grow and understand the unspoken rules that have both helped and hindered me in my quest for authentic human experience.  When I consider Freedom of Religion, I move into a realm where more than any other, my convictions impact those around me.  Most of the people I meet could care less whether I have learned to meet my needs, to conquer want.  But, I talk daily with those who (rightly) have an intense interest in the truths I hold about the nature of reality, humanity, the material world, history, and ethics.  All these grow out of my religious convictions.

It is no solution to adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" standard in regard to religious ideas.  They come out in everything we do and say.  How then do we affirm religious freedom for one person without thereby delimiting the freedom of his neighbor?