A public Colloquy organized by the MU Center for Religion, the Professions & the Public


Transcript
(Participant names are deleted to preserve the freely expressive nature of the event)


Moderator:
Good evening everybody, and welcome. I'm Sandy Hodge, and I work for University of Missouri Extension. I am a state public policy specialist. This is one of the jobs I do for University of Missouri Extension; I hold community forums. This evening I am working in collaboration with the Center for Religion, the Professions & the Public at the University of Missouri. Ed Lambeth is their director. Ed, would you like to say something just briefly about the Center?

Lambeth:
Yes, I will. We were three years old this April 1. We've had two of our community conversations, this being the second one. The other one was about narrative journalism and the potential of narrative journalism for talking across cultural and religious lines. We have a very strong faculty, and we are looking forward to working in the community and also on campus with our students. We have two courses: one in religion reporting and writing and another one in journalism, religion, and public life. We're happy to offer those and we appear to have a very strong interest in both of those things.

If we have to make choices about this issue, what are some of the costs, consequences, and trade-offs of those choices? A lot of times we tend to be in public discussions and because we polarize we never really get to the point where we start asking about what are the costs and consequences of our choices and who will they impact? So we might discuss some of that tonight.

The first thing I'd like to do, though, is I find it very helpful as a moderator to have some guidelines that direct the conversation. The first one that seems to work very well is for people to use "I" statements. That means they speak from their own experience. Another one is that we speak one at a time. I ask you please not to interrupt. You don't have to raise your hand because my goal as a moderator is to direct the conversation, but I'd kind of like to disappear on the side. I don't want you talking to me. I want you talking to each other. But I do just ask you to speak one at a time, and be thoughtful about letting everyone have a chance to speak. And finally, I ask that you be respectful and be reminded that this is a conversation where there is a lot of room for disagreement. I just ask that we disagree respectfully.

So I'd also like to ask if you feel you can live with these guidelines, just give me a little show of hands. And if there's anything else you think you might like to add or will this be sufficient? Seems to work. . .? Okay, great. We'll put them up. .. I've given you a little summary sheet, which is a synopsis of the issue we're going to talk about tonight. Basically the issue is that a number of citizens see religion as one of the few antidotes to a perceived decline in morality, and more public officials do not want to check their religion at the public door. Others from across the political and religious spectrum call our attention to the civic purposes of religion. If we are not to ignore those religiously motivated citizens and public officials - and recent elections indicate that we cannot - then the fundamental political and social challenge of these times is one of figuring out how a polity can be open to religious insights without succumbing to the temptation to impose specific religious beliefs through the state.

We stand at a crossroads in human history and in American life. How will human beings in the new millennium give personal and public expression to this perennial feature of their existence, the religious impulse? What role should religion play in public life, if any? And so this is the question we're going to deliberate tonight. One of the things I would like to ask you to do is think briefly... Have any of you had any personal experience that you can relate with this issue, this question of the role of religion in public life, a personal story or something that you could tell us.

Participant:
At Hickman just last month we had a big forum, about 300 students, on stem cell research. On the panel we had five people. Certainly the religious perspectives of each of those persons came into play in terms of how they had formed their opinions. And so while certainly the forum wasn't designed to impose any of those views on the students, you could clearly see in this public dialogue that people's religious views were a very important part of how they come to their decisions.

Moderator:
Does anybody else have a personal story on how religion has impacted you?

Female:
I have a very, very good friend that I'm very close to. He's Dutch and is very interesting as His family deliberated on...In the Netherlands euthanasia has been discussed for the last 10 years. As a nation they agreed that it was something they agreed upon. It was really wonderful for me to witness his aunt to make that decision and such a dignified way for her to end her life. I was just awestruck with how wonderful it was for her to have the choice to do that when she wants to do that. An incredible sharing for me to see that. For a wonderful women to decide when she must end life. It was very important for me to see.

Moderator:
Anyone else what to share a personal story on how this impacts us or impacts you personally?

Lambeth:
In the early 1990s, Columbia was experiencing the first onslaught of AIDS. There was a community unit funded by the federal government trying to respond to local needs of people who were sufferers of AIDS. That began to disintegrate for a variety of reasons. My wife and I were part of the interfaith community that established the Regional AIDS Interfaith Network (RAIN). We did that after a great deal of planning. We were very surprised by the extent of the support and comparative lack of explosive reactions, provided we did the homework. It was really rewarding experience and had fairly widespread participation.

Moderator:
How did that make you feel?

Lambeth:
Well, real challenges when you're dealing with death. Two-prong program one is prevention of AIDS by lecture and info sessions at various locations, not only faith communities, also public schools. We had some special speakers, we had excellent help from Eddie Hendrick, infectious disease control officer, at the hospital. Then we had care teams go out to people dying of AIDS and had no way to go to the doctor, needing a ride, couldn't get to grocery (store), needed help with groceries and finally, some to stay with them until they died. Medicine was not as good. As the medicine began to be plentiful in the community and the more advanced drugs took hold. It seems at that time, less and less involvement by the church, synagogues, mosque, whatever. In any event, it's changed the character. I have not been active for a number of years. Was for first several years. Very rewarding experience.

Moderator:
Have something personal to say?

Male:
Not too personal. Dr. XXXX XXXX might want to join us. Empty chair but have to join us up here.

I called up XXXX XXXX, unsuccessful candidate for school board. Those of you not from Columbia or CPS district. He's a local lawyer. Called him after he lost to sort of encourage him a little bit, fifth- time candidate for school board. At a candidate forum he had mentioned evolution, he thought God had a place in the schools, can't paraphrase exactly what he said, but it became a big controversy. I found XXXX not in need of consoling at all. Quite a good attitude about it all. Interesting to watch it play out in journalistic forums and elsewhere.

Moderator:
Do you have a personal story that you can relate?

Male:
I remember as a boy, going to elementary school. And every . . . holiday season, if you call it holiday season, or Christmas season. We had to go to the all-purpose room, and we'd sing about 20 religious Christmas carols and then they'd throw in O Driedel, Driedel, Driedel, the song for Hanukkah. There were no songs of any other religious tradition whatsoever. We were required to do that. In addition to having to say prayer right before the Pledge of Allegiance. I remember a feeling . . . a sense of alienation, a sense of exclusion of marginality . . . because of inclusion of the majority cultures religion in a school where many people were supposed to be welcome. And delight at the age of 11, when the Supreme Courts decided that was unconstitutional.

Moderator:
How about one more? A personal story.

Participant:
Interesting personal story with the opening because when I look at how I spend my time and how I interact with any other human being. This particular issue is kinda central to everything that I do ... How it affects when I interact, what decisions I make, basically central to everything I do and every choice that I make. Personal story pretty much it. Really interesting and to brief the information and being here for discussion.

Moderator:
OK, well let me tell you a little about the structure of what we're going to do tonight. Look at issue from three approaches, 20 minutes each approach. If I segue into the second one, I apologize if I miss you, but our goal is two-hour forum and I like to honor my commitments ... You all have lives too. So, what we'll do at the end, reflect on what was said and we'll look for areas that we have seen with common ground, common interests in the group. That will be our focus tonight. Consider each approach and look at the cost consequences and impacts of the approach on our choices.

Briefly put these up, approach one - Stay the secular course

I'll read what's on the sheet, but keep it up here just to remind you in case you don't want to keep looking at the white paper about what the first approach says.

(Reading) Proponents of this approach believe that, overall, our country's secular public culture is good and that the enforcement of a strict separation of church and state is essential to preserving social peace and fostering a diverse, pluralistic society. A recent poll shows, whatever their religious views, Americans have a healthy respect for the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state and religion should not be used as a guideline for public policy. When acting publicly, citizens and public officials should "check their religions beliefs at the door" and make their arguments for particular policy positions in rational (pragmatic and empirical) terms and on the basis of general non-religious moral principals.

Some of the things that people suggest that could possibly be done with this approach is to:
- Support a strict "wall of separation" between church and state by restricting
governmental support of religion . . . outlawing prayer in schools, the teaching of religious doctrines such as creationism or intelligent design
- Support scientific literacy
- Keep tax dollars and government agencies out of the business of supporting faith­based organizations
- Insist on the appointment of judges and other public officials who do not seek to
blur the distinction between "God's justice and ours" between secular government and religiously-guided principal

First question to start off with, what makes this issue real for us? What makes this issue real for you? Ask you to conversation with each other.

Female:
What makes it real for me ... personal story, trying to pick out one there are so many. Member of minority religion that is not generally accepted, broadly misunderstood. Personally stand to gain a lot more freedom and chance to participate in society under this strict separation. In some level, I would like to be able to have the opportunity to have education about different religious choices, but I don't think we've grown up enough in society that we open it beyond the very strict Judeo-Christian traditions. A lot of people misunderstand whole idea of interfaith dialogue and conversation and I'm glad to see that we have a diverse group that goes across that. But, I've been to some interfaith organizations where interfaith meant different sects within the Judeo tradtion.

Broad society where we can participate have to maintain wall of separation until we become mature enough to accept whip and pentacle being on the town square along with the Christmas decorations until we can have Hindu teachings in school and presentation of the bible. I'm not sure we've reached that point yet. What would happen if we allow religion into the state is that it will be an intense amount of pressure.

I was in that class with you. We knew it wasn't us they were talking about. There's a strong peer pressure to say "I'm a Christian" and just sort of float through in society and ignore that. I even see that a lot in the workplace. A lot of people I work with say privately "I really feel pressured. I don't like all this stuff. I'm kinda generally a Christian, but I don't like people judging me because I don't go to church every Sunday and I don't wear my Bible on my sleeve. But I don't dare speak up." That's what I'm afraid of if we go to any other thing besides this strictly separate approach.

New participant female:
Very well said nervous talking about this it is a little bit scary. Don't know that I'm 100 percent approach 1. Between approach 1 and 3. I understand what you're saying.
Guess you would say I'm a nondenominational believer. Grew up dinostic. Don't have a strong sense that I need to join a religion, but a strong believer.

I think monotheism is what scares me. I may not have a full understanding of this.
I guess my prejudice is that monotheists, by their very definition, believe that their god is the right god. And that other people need to be convinced that their god is correct. If we are a monotheistic country, Christian-Judeo then the people most likely to get into power will be those to believe their god is right. That means that if they get into playing political power . . . majority political power . . . they will have an army and a police force to go along with their beliefs.

My beliefs are very hard won and I kind of think what you said is right, that we are not mature enough to go to the approach that I really believe in - to approach 3 paradoxical approach. Semi-permeable membrane let religion in and the secular world thinks that it crosses.
I'm not sure that paradox is something we can maintain in our culture right now.

Moderator:
Thoughts on approach one and staying the secular course?

Male participant:
It's kind of interesting that both of you use the term mature enough. I guess it's how you look at it. In my perspective. You can look at just the United States or look at humanity as a whole. From my cultural background, humanity is just now reaching the age of maturity as a whole. When you see, even as our children, go through infancy, through toddler, youth and then you have certain test, certain challenges that happen when you come of age. From my perspective we are getting to a point where we can at least have dialogue where humanity reaches a whole to be able to go forth. If there wasn't no choice but to continue progressing.

Female:
This approach 1 is very real to me for several reasons. I am a Daoist and my family is a Daoist for many, many centuries. We are very spiritual, but Doaism is natural atheistic and yet we are very spiritual. So, there lies something that people cannot comprehend out of our world, our philosophy and way of life. But as a result, we also respect other ways, other paths of believing, but in terms in building a society, I feel societies that have progressed in the world today are ones that have chosen this secular path. Strict separation of church and state somehow gets people to not sort of clash and use religion as the basis for that.

I was just doing some reading on the Puritans people who came here to lead a better life they would probably support approach 1, separation of church and state. To some extent, it's very complex the Puritans. I know XXXX probably is like laughing. I know you know about Cromwell and all of that. They are against organized religion. That part is very true in terms ofthe Puritans. But, there are many aspects of that. I feel personally that we can have a peaceful world if we really have a strict separation of church and state.

Male:
I come to this conversation as a person of faith. I preached an Easter sermon at my church yesterday. I also come as a person who belongs to American Civil Liberties Union. I want to urge that in looking at approach No. 1, that we look particularly at the legal and political order. If we're looking at the cultural order, both of which might be subsumed under the title public. Then I would advocate strongly for a government, a legal political order that is secular. It doesn't mean that I advocate secularism in the public realm, because I bring religious values to the public realm.

In the '60s and '70s, I was working with Dr. Martin Luther King, was working against the war in Vietnam, and in recent years, I've worked on the human rights commission here in town. All of these are because of my religious values that I want to inform the public realm and dialogue. I speak as a Quaker, not born into the Society of Friends, but one who strongly identifies with it. Quakers were the only group in the colonial period, except Native Americans, but the only European group where its members were put to death because of their religious beliefs. There were four Quaker ministers who were expelled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony by a theocracy, a word that I hope we are willing to use here. And were told that if they came back, we'll kill you. And they came back and they were killed. So Quakers have a vested interest in not wanting to allow the legal political order to have the (???) might of the state to persecute, punish and ultimately eliminate people because of their belief.

New participant male:
I guess my concern that I speak as one who is a Christian, an evangelical Christian. I believe I am a monotheist. I believe that God is real. I believe there are such things as truth, good and evil. Those are all important aspects in my life and have been a part of the motivations in my life. I also speak as an old political science professor, who was involved in the civil rights movement in the '60s, and who has been involved in many others, who has attended a Quaker College one year, who has been involved in variety of different experiences and different efforts at building interfaith or ecumenical cooperation in local communities.

One of the concerns I have is that we sometimes forget that secularism is also a religion. And can be as negative toward other religious beliefs as any other religion that becomes dominant. My concern, frankly, is in some ways, some parts of our society may have gone too far to the point where it becomes a watered-down thing in which we equalize and protect everybody in effect by saying, "You poor children. None of you believe anything that's important, so we will tolerate you." And it seems to me that what we need, and it will be interesting when we get to approach 3, if we can get to some of that, is something which says I believe very profoundly, very deeply, very strongly, in my faith. I believe in God, I believe this is truth. That does not mean that I have to throttle someone else to force them to accept it. But, it does mean that I should be respected enough to acknowledge that it's possible I might know something of value. Just as I should be willing to accept that of other faiths and other groups.

In the public arena, there are ways that we can cooperate. I can remember growing up in an era in which the barricade between Catholic and Protestant, for example, was total. Let alone any other group. The first major breakthrough was in the civil rights movement in the '60s and the thing that fascinated me about that was that I saw Jews, Catholics, Protestants, coming together. Not saying I have to give up my beliefs so we work together. But saying we have a common objective, a common concern, what can we bring to this and how can we work together? Let's not worry about the fact that we're different, let's, in fact, see that as a richness. But it was having a common focus that gave us a chance to interact with each other in a way that was respectful. Well, I've talked too long, I'll stop.

New female:
I read the material you sent about the three approaches. When I was first with approach 1 and then the 2 and then I saw the 3, I really felt that the people of approach 3 are really saying approach 1 but somehow misunderstand in some way what secularism is. I mean, to have a strict separation of church and state, to me, simply means the religion is at the individual level. And the state, the political, shouldn't really enforce one, support one or oppose another which comes to the same thing. If you do one, you kind of would be doing the other without actually saying that. And the people, in that sense, all are looking for is that the state just stays out of it. It does not mean that the people come to work, like the presidents and other public officials that they have to check it at the door. They need to have their religious conviction, they have that.

It would really be helpful in making the decisions, just like the examples that we heard with the reasonable cause, such as civil rights movement. People just came together based on their religious belief. They all came to the same conclusion as to what needs to be done. But perhaps from the different growing up of things. And one of the things I liked about, which I hope is that the approach 3 is trying to say or some way to bridge, is eventually, I don't really want to see any time that there be no separation of church and state, even if we are exceptionally mature. But I really would like to see what, maybe what we're trying to say is, how an opportunity for everybody to learn about all religions and an opportunity for an individual to be part of as many religions as they want to be. As they are growing up in different times in their life, and may be simultaneously.

There are people who may go to more than one situations and this is not necessarily to feel that you could only be excluded just because you are in one religion from everything else or is to be required is also some conviction. We would like people to have freedom to believe what they want to believe. I think that is a good situation. I'd rather be grounded there. If you want to believe it that is.

Moderator:
We are going to move on to approach 3. I would like to suggest that continue to explore approach 1, because one of the things that do want to talk about is if this approach were to become a decision pointer, we made a choice about this approach, what might be some of the costs and consequences, what would some of the trade offs be ifthis was one of the approaches?

Male:
Well, just by reading the description of approach 1, I'm reminded of what's going on in France, especially in public schools in France, where they're trying to maintain a strict separation of church and state. But that is leading to the demeaning of people's faiths because a lot of faiths have external, public expressions. I hate to use people as an example, but XXXX XXXXX here you see is dressed in a certain way, he has a beard, he's wearing certain clothes that will automatically identify him in public as a Muslim. And in France, they are banning any kind of religious headdress, any headdress whether it is religious or not just as a way of saying that this is a separation of church and state. That's directly demeaning and ignoring the fact that people have that there's a public part to faith. People are being denied their rights to practice their faith because of this wall.

Just there is an idea of a wall, is something that I've very against, it's human nature to fight against walls. It's an obstacle, an obstruction. People want to tear down walls. Physically, the Berlin wall didn't last. I don't think the wall between Israel and Palistine will last. Even the Great Wall of China didn't last, eventually that was toppled over as well. The idea of having a wall between church and state, that's absolute, that people cannot even practice their faith or go according to their faith if they're in a public place that's something that's really impossible, especially for people who do wish to practice their faith in their own way. So, it's just difficult for me to accept the idea that and just to begin with the first census the country's secular culture is good. I don't think that we live in a secular culture, because I turn on the TV and I see there's whole channels devoted to one particular faith. I walk around on campus and there's people devoted to one particular faith who express their viewpoint and I don't see them being told there's a separation, you can't say that.

Or I don't also hear people of other faiths expressing their viewpoints if it is going to be an equal opportunity way of expressing their faith. I don't think the first approach is something that exists and I don't think that it's something that can be in existence forever. It might be possible for a short time, but again going back to the census, preserving social peace - France is trying that and I don't see a lot of social peace going on in France. I'm not saying it's directly related to the separation of church and state, but I do see it as a way of submerging real issues that end up coming out as violence or protests. I think that it's something that cannot exist forever.

Female:
I hear what you're saying about France, because I've been looking at that situation too. Especially the women in the schools and they are told they cannot wear their veils or anything that is marking them as religious. And apparantly this is the case. I have heard this is the case in France with all categories. Basically, you can't even have a civil rights movement over there because first you have to say that I'm of a different group. And oops, we're going to pretend there are no different groups. And so you can't even band together around things that are oppressing you. And if your boss fires you for being in the wrong group or whatever, you can't even do a complaint because legally your group doesn't exist.

There's no difference between all these things. Which is not same kind of situation that we have here where we have groups with identity problem. And people grouping around particular social identity and saying I am a part of this group and I'm participating in American society as a member of "X" category. I think that's a real important difference to look at our expression with the secular culture or legal culture and France. And also I would say that France is basically discriminating again only they are discriminating against everybody who doesn't look like a, I mean it's got a........... ! don't want to pick on Protestants, but to me, at least in this country, you can't tell a Protestant from an atheist or an agnostic just by looking at them. Unless the Protestant happens to be wearing a cross or something marking them as a particular denomination. There's no marker - guys wear tops and jeans, shoes or well, they wear this or slacks, T-shirts. There's no distinction and it seems like France is a society which is basically saying we're going to eliminate the differences by eliminating the outward markers.

But that's just basically saying it is a form of discrimination against everybody who doesn't believe in a particular ideology. Which is not what I'm hoping that our society is based to create. Which is where the people have the legal structure, but within the legal structure you have your personal variations.

Moderator:
Let me just take a quick timeout here. There's some folks in the back wanting to say something. Are you all raising your hand?

Female:
As examples to announce it. (???)

Male:
I didn't get your name sir.

Moderator:
Not really. If you would like to join the conversation, you need to come sit in the circle. (Movement) All right. You can bring your chair up if you want with you. Observers' role is to not participate, so you're welcome to come in if you like. Go ahead, you had a comment.

XXXX XXXX

Male:
I'd like to affirm what XXXX said about secularism as a world view. The reciprocal argument of science, you can prove through science which is scientific, you can prove the Bible what is written in the Bible. I mean it's kind of the same thing. And what we're
talking about here with France is secularism pushed to its logical extreme. You know, Stalin did a pretty good job of stamping out religious expression, but we weren't really happy with the results of 30 million killed at that kind of a price. So, the problem with going with a complete secular wall, as you were saying. Where's the moral law come from? I mean, who gives us that moral law upon which we base our statutes, public policy, all the decisions we make about stem-cell research, euthanasia, AIDS. It's impossible to say that you can leave your personal feelings of these things at the door, I think. So, if we're not going to use the Judeo-Christian ethic that the country was founded on, where willl that moral law come from and who is the moral law giver?

Moderator:
I would like to ask the people that haven't had to speak to go ahead and speak.

Male:
This use of the phrase "stay the secular course" - I don't think we're on any secular course. Because I don't believe there is a secular sphere. Everything that we call secular is infused with a couple hundred years of Judeo-Christian tradition. So, when we say secular, I think we're actually referring to kind of lukewarm Judeo-Christian values. And so to say, how are we going to deal with these moral issues of euthanasia, abortion, and so forth. The way that these things are already being dealt with, the way they're being discussed in a public forum and so forth, I don't think there's anything nonreligious about it. I don't think the idea to pursue a secular course, perhaps, I don't know where that would lead. But, to stay a secular course we haven't even begun on that. And to think that we have a secular culture, is slightly ignorant.

Female:
To back up, I'm from Europe and I've lived here for only a year. And what I've noticed through one of these arguments of separation of church and state is that it seems to be very selective here. And so, where is in Europe you're taught religious studies and that means that you have to learn every religion. And I was very interested when you said that you don't conform to any particular religion. I'm really curious to what you believe in and I may not agree with it, but I'd really like to hear it and understand it. In Europe, we're taught it at such a young age and then you're kind of left on your own. No one forces you to do anything about it, but you go about - it's not about Abrahamic religions and then you have about minor religions. And you take an exam to say you understand it and that's it.

I find it really interesting that in the States, you don't teach it in school and there are arguments whether children should pledge to the flag and use the word "God." And yet, when I attended the National Guard's appointment to Afghanistan, they did and there were a lot of blessings and God and very, very Christians. I'm sure not everyone. I find that really interesting that you choose what seems to be a common terms - separating church and state and secular communities and stuff, when it isn't at all. I think one of the issues is that if you don't teach it in schools, all you're going to breed is ignorance. Then if you carry on ignorance, all you're going to breed is fear. Because no one understand what everyone else is talking about.

Male:
I would argue that most public schools and high schools and junior high schools, students are taught a lot about religion. Not necessarily imposed upon them that they are supposed to believe it, but those history classes in the United States, I would say students get a pretty good background in religion and have at least some understanding of it. So, it's not as if there's a complete vacuum that religion doesn't exist. Certainly, I think when talking about the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King's being a Baptist minister, I think that's discussed. Gandhii, a great (???) soul, I think those things are taught. So, it's not as if there is an active vacuum within public schools.

Female:
But that means that it's tied to history, so it's not ever taught?

Male response:
Of course, of course. Is treating classes, religion classes <interrupted>....

Male:
Teaching, like classroom teaching?

Female:
Is it tied to history through the Crusades....... ?

Male:
I think all world religions that are taught are discussed within the historical context. I think that's the most logical and reasonable way for them to discuss.

Female:
Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't they be taught through a religious context?

Male:
Well, if you're teaching a religious context in a sense that you're simply discussing religions as part of a culture, then it seems that if you're trying to understand culture, you're trying to create a more eclectic society. Then indeed you have a better understanding. To teach in a vacuum is very difficult.

Moderator:
This gentleman - you have a comment? Then, we have to move on to approach 2. I know you all are going to get frustrated by some of this, but that's alright.

Male:
I've been to the discussion, secular, from two perspectives. One American and one originally I'm from India. And there secularism is carried to extreme just so that the country can prove it's secular credentials. We have laws that are Muslim laws, Christian laws, Hindu laws. There's no common law for the country. So secular carried to the extreme can also create a lot of problems in the government of diverse society. That's probably not as well understood here as secular is. It's largely due to interest in values and we are on a separation of church and state and nation. But laws that are practiced in India, we have laws that are distinct different groups and trying to please everyone can be secularism bending backwards.

Moderator:
OK, that's kind of a good segue into approach 2. Which in the interest of time. So, Approach 2 - if you have your little cheat sheets here is entitled "Recover our Judeo­Christian Heritage."

(Reading) Proponents of this approach are most concerned that secular humanist values have encouraged the cultural decline. They see these values are anti-religious in all our public institutions: government, law, education, the media, etc. And, these are not the abiding values that shaped our nation at it's foundings, nor are they the values that are held by most Americans today. They argue that most Americans are religious, and that many have come to feel that their religion is under assault by a militant secularism that allows no place for beliefs and shows no place for culture. It is time, they argue, to recover the Biblical values of our nation's Judeo-Christian heritage and to allow these values to have effect in our public lives and policy.

(speaking) Now, what are some of the proponents that should be done?

(reading)
- Allow public schools to teach about the Judeo-Christian heritage of America and
theories about natural and human origins that challenge scientific evolutionary theory
- Strengthen the public support of faith-based initiatives and encourage
government-religious institutional partnerships for a wide variety of societal tasks from social services to international diplomacy
- Let religious belief inform our public discourse and policy decisions

(speaking) So, let me ask you another question. What evidence can any of you provide that this particular approach is important to us? Let's say why this approach is a very important approach?

Male:
In what way?