NEWS
U of M responds to secular complaints
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Michael Gendall:
- School detox numbers highest in nation (October 20, 2005)
- Michigan fans claim UW students grossly inappropriate at game (October 20, 2005)
- Regent Walsh looks for swift committee findings (October 21, 2005)
- In-Depth: Forward. Planning. (February 20, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Madison-based group sues University of Minnesota (March 31, 2005)
- Prison religion class under fire (November 11, 2005)
- Atheists expand kids' ranch suit (November 1, 2007)
- Group contests Bush initiatives (December 6, 2006)
- Foundation adds to holiday display (December 5, 2007)
by Michael Gendall
Friday, September 9, 2005
The Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation announced this week it was successful in convincing the University of Minnesota not to offer a Faith/Health Clinical Leadership Program after filing a lawsuit against the University March 25. The FFRF said the course promoted religion, which is unconstitutional for a public university.
"The university has finally agreed not to teach the course," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "They were quite adamant during the negotiations that they had satisfied the complaint by withdrawing from the [Minnesota Faith Health Consortium]."
The FFRF referred to the university's recent decision not to offer the course as a "complete victory" for their foundation in a release Tuesday.
U of M Communications Director Dan Wolter said the foundation is overstating the significance of Minnesota's decision not to offer the course.
"This organization is more interested in public relations than anything else," Wolter said of the FFRF. "They made it sound like we changed generations of established policy."
According to Wolter, the class in question was never actually offered at the university; instead, the foundation brought the lawsuit while U of M debated whether or not to add the course to its curriculum.
"This organization is trying to tout this as some big victory [but] it's actually a course that has never been offered," Wolter said.
Despite the university's decision to cooperate with the FFRF's request not to offer this particular course, Wolter said the study of any correlation between healing and faith is an acceptable field of research in the academic community.
"The connection between spirituality and healing is a legitimate academic pursuit and that [pursuit] is certainly going to be something that goes on in the future at the University of Minnesota and other places that do medical or health research," he said.
Regardless of any discussion regarding the legitimacy of the research, Gaylor said U of M's proposed class promoted religion as opposed to presenting it objectively.
"[The course was] completely to promote what they called faith health leadership," Gaylor said. "This is not the study of religion anymore; this is devotion, this is proselytizing."
According to Gaylor, any violation of the separation between church and state that goes unchallenged is used to justify worse violations. After successfully toppling U of M's program, Gaylor said the FFRF was prepared to launch future lawsuits against other liable institutions.
"[U of M was] touting how they are promoting religion and that they need to get more funding," Gaylor said. "This is not what you have in a secular country; this is more like what you would have in a theocracy."
Wolter acknowledged the role the FFRF plays in American society, and complemented it for raising some "very legitimate" issues.
University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse said she agreed with Wolter, despite the fact that the FFRF may have a more extreme ideological view than the court system concerning the separation of church and state.
"They still perform a function in bringing the cases to the court," Althouse said.
