Against Emotional Manipulation in Our Schools; In Support of LifeWise Academy
The following is an opinion essay I wrote this week for my local newspaper in Oldham County, Kentucky
We live in an age of fear and appeasement. I was reminded of that last week as I read about the debate within the Oldham County Board of Education (KY) over whether to allow LifeWise Academy to conduct faith-based instruction during school hours at Locust Grove Elementary School. Cultural institutions are broken and inept because we too often cater to outrage from fear of offending the vocal minority. Our schools don’t need appeasement; they need leaders with moral courage.
The article quotes Michael Fox, a parent of Oldham County students, who said, “If you approved and endorsed this program, [Oldham County Schools] is endorsing a set of religious beliefs and dangerously close to violating the Establishment Clause.” Similarly, Kentucky Citizens for Democracy issued a press release with a clear ideological anti-religion agenda, stating that “this proposed partnership is in conflict with the democratic principle of the separation of church and state.”
Let’s clarify the laws relevant to this debate. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court heard a case against New York City’s public schools over a program that allowed students to be dismissed from the classroom to participate in religious instruction off campus. In its decision, the Court ruled that such a “released time” program neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion so long as public facilities were not used and students were not forced to participate.
The legal precedent for organizations like LifeWise has been established for over seventy years. The laws of our nation allow religious instruction during school hours if the instruction takes place off campus and parents give permission for their students to participate. The LifeWise plan meets all legal criteria.
Importantly, Justice William Douglas wrote for the majority that there was “no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”
Douglas, of course, wrote those words because he understood the historical significance of our nation’s establishment clause. It may surprise some readers to learn that the phrase “separation of church and state,” though a favorite among secularists, never appears in any of the founding documents of the United States. Instead, it derives from a letter that President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Connecticut, assuring them that government would not interfere with their freedom to follow their own consciences in matters of religion. It was a phrase originally used, not to stop religion, but to protect it.
The First Amendment of the Constitution, popularly known as the Establishment Clause, states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The amendment bans government from establishing any religion and protects citizens to freely practice the religion of their choice.
By allowing LifeWise’s program, Oldham County Schools is not establishing, or even endorsing, any religion. Instead, they are allowing parents to add a miniscule element of religious instruction (one hour per week) to the educational curriculum of their children. What is so scary about that? Why is Kentucky Citizens for Democracy so afraid of parents adding legal religious instruction to their own children’s curriculum?
Nearly three decades ago, Richard John Neuhaus argued that any notion of a “naked public square”—public space that operates apart from the influence of religion—is impossible. He wrote, "When recognizable religion is excluded, the vacuum will be filled by ersatz religion, by religion bootlegged into public space under other names." In other words, you may be able to keep recognized religions out of public spaces, but religion will invade that void under the guise of other names because human beings cannot function apart from values and beliefs about right and wrong. If we don’t derive those values from religion, we’re going to get them from some other ideological source.
This debate is not a debate between religious people and non-religious people; it is instead a debate between two competing religions—the revealed religion of Christianity and the secular religion of Progressivism. Kentucky Citizens for Democracy is afraid of religious instruction in public schools because it challenges the prevailing established religion in power—the one that refuses to name any human behavior “sin” and therefore obscures the gracious redemption available to sinners through Jesus Christ.
A few years ago, my daughter was humiliated at her public middle school right here in Oldham County. She was sent to the office and questioned because she had made gift bags for her classmates that included snacks, personalized labels, and an invitation to our church. The administrative staff told her that she could pass out everything except the church invitations.
Does that sound like neutrality? Not only was it a violation of my daughter’s constitutional right to freely express her religious convictions, but it was also an imposition of religion upon her conscience. She was told in no uncertain terms that only one religion—only one set of values—is allowed in public schools. While I would not call her experience “persecution,” she was certainly humiliated in front of her classmates for her belief in God. The Establishment Clause was designed to protect my daughter, not ban LifeWise Academy.
In his own day, C. S. Lewis lamented “men without chests,” or educators who focused exclusively on the intellect and neglected to teach virtue and values. Our students need instruction to help them recognize what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful. Without such instruction, they will derive their values from some other source. To make sure they get access to an alternative religion than the one prevailing in our schools today, public school leaders will need to stand courageously on the laws of our nation without conceding to emotional manipulation.