LETTERS

John Tomasin and Richard DeTar ("Letters," March/April 1999) should read We the Jury by Godfrey D. Lehman (Prometheus Books, 1997). As readers of the Humanist, they might be interested in the historical connection between jury nullification and freedom of religion and state-church separation.

The repealing of bad laws, as suggested by Tomasin, is obviously to be desired but does nothing for a person convicted under a bad law, of which we have many.

Lou Bales
Los Altos, CA

School Choice

As a progressive Protestant and religious humanist, I personally have taken a highly qualitative viewpoint on the issue of school choice. I do not believe it is contrary to liberal thinking to allow many things to be done privately. There are private organizations in this country that are socially progressive in their contributions to education and society. It doesn't seem unfair to assert that public education currently has a monopoly. I don't believe, however, that school choice could be allowed unconditionally.

Historically speaking, limited governmental intervention has been necessary to prevent the unfair abuses of the private sphere. Likewise, private schools that would discriminate on the basis of religion, creed, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, or gender shouldn't be allowed to admit students who are individually receiving public funds of any kind. This would automatically eliminate religious fundamentalists from qualifying if the guidelines were properly enforced and would obviously include review of teaching curricula to ensure professional standards. And finally, this would prevent arbitrary associations from being made by partisan liberals.

As humanists, our leading interest should be that of unity, so long as it is contributing to the evolution of humanity and human society. A house that is divided against itself will not stand. The support of private education, regardless of religious affiliation, by giving money to individual families is a viable option. To do this effectively, however, limited government intervention would be entirely necessary.

Clayton Johnson
Toccoa Falls, GA

"Teaching About Religion"

We are writing in response to Edd Doerr's "Church and State" column in your November/December 1998 issue. Although we appreciate Doerr's positive comments about Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (by Nord and Haynes), we take exception to a number of his statements.

Doerr's summary of Nord's earlier book, Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma, is misleading. The book is not an attack on public education but, rather, an in-depth exploration of the complex historical and contemporary debates about the relationship of religion and education in America. Nord's primary goal is to articulate a conception of religious neutrality (in keeping with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the establishment clause) and liberal education that provide direction for reforming public education.

Doerr also disparages Living with Our Deepest Differences, a social studies curriculum co-authored by Haynes and Thomas, saying that it's "not suitable for use in public schools." Your readers should know that this curriculum was also co-authored by noted historian Timothy Smith, tested and evaluated by scores of teachers, and widely praised by curriculum developers. Hundreds of teachers report that these lessons have been a valuable resource as they teach about religious liberty in American history.

We also challenge Doerr's inaccurate characterization of the process of developing position statements on religion in the schools--a process cochaired by Haynes and Thomas ten years ago. We deny ever suggesting that we "did not want broad input and specifically did not want involvement of the Unitarian Universalist Association, the American Humanist Association, or Americans for Religious Liberty." As we (Haynes and Thomas) have explained to Doerr on several occasions, the number of organizations involved in those efforts was limited purely for practical, not ideological, reasons. Scores of prestigious national organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association and the American Humanist Association were not involved, but those that were involved represented a broad spectrum of perspectives.

Finally, concerning Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum, Doerr agrees "more should be taught about religion" in public schools. But where we offer specific ways to improve the study of religion in the curriculum, Doerr keeps suggesting that it can't be done. Rather than outlining steps to correct the problem (as we do), Doerr leaves the impression that, although it should be done, the day will never come "when it can be done right."

We agree with Doerr when he says that study about religion in public schools should be done "when adequate safeguards are in place to ensure objectivity, accuracy, balance, and fairness." But we also provide considerable evidence that, with regard to religion, public education is not now objective, balanced, or fair. We cannot leave well enough alone. The book gives much space to a discussion of what Doerr claims Nord and Haynes ignore: how to teach about religion accurately and fairly, proposals for reform in teacher education, and how to address problems of inclusion and balance. Moreover, in various parts of the country, we are trying to do what Doerr says he supports: training teachers to teach about religion in ways that are both constitutionally permissible and educationally sound.