NEWS
Debating church and UW
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Nick Penzenstadler:
- For whom the bell tolls (November 29, 2007)
- New apartments for West Wash? (November 20, 2007)
- One-and-out: Kumar will not seek 2nd term on Dane County Board (November 15, 2007)
- Displaced Carroll residents call university, bookstore helpful (November 13, 2007)
- Carroll Street fire displaces students (November 12, 2007)
Related Stories:
- U of M responds to secular complaints (September 9, 2005)
- Contentious sign garners interest (December 4, 2006)
- Atheists expand kids' ranch suit (November 1, 2007)
- New billboard warns city 'Beware of Dogma' (October 3, 2007)
- FFRF draws criticism for holiday sign (December 6, 2005)
by Nick Penzenstadler
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Members standing on polar opposite sides of the separation of church and state debate recreated the age-old whirlwind of controversy at a panel discussion Tuesday night in Memorial Union.
The discussion, "Unholy Alliance: Religion & Politics," was hosted by the Wisconsin Union Directorate and welcomed Annie Gaylor, director of the Freedom From Religion Foundation — a national organization of atheists, agnostics and freethinkers based in Madison — as well as Tim Kruse, president of the University of Wisconsin Roman Catholic Foundation — the self-proclaimed largest student organization on campus.
Both Gaylor and Kruse described their separate federal lawsuits currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This is a passionate, emotional issue, with a clash of ideas and thoughts," said UW political science professor Donald Downs, who moderated the discussion. "UW is the No. 1 place for First Amendment issues (and) student speech codes."
Kruse presented the history behind his case before the Supreme Court, based on the standards the university used to fund UWRCF through the Associated Students of Madison Student Services Finance Committee.
With roughly 30 percent of students at the university self-identifying as Catholic, Kruse said the views are restricted from segregated fees.
"They cannot exclude religious groups from the forum," Kruse said. "If you're going to have the fee collected, it needs to be available. Religion enriches the marketplace of ideas."
Kruse added they were subjected to stiff competition from SSFC members and UW administration when the organization applied for activity funds not directly tied to worship.
Gaylor countered Kruse's argument by citing the danger of government-funded religions and launched into a discussion of the separation of church and state.
With several Supreme Court cases filed against the Bush administration, Gaylor also explained the idea of "faith czars at the White House," where Gaylor said faith-based initiatives are holding the hands of religious organizations in an "unprecedented violation of the separation of church and state."
"George Bush has changed the rules. They have gotten plenty of funding," Gaylor said. "It didn't need to be fixed, there should be no proselytizing."
UW political science professor emeritus Booth Fowler was also on hand to challenge both arguments as a neutral party.
Fowler criticized Gaylor for taking an aggressive tact with her arguments, but also turned to Kruse, suggesting he consider possible corruption from state dollars in his organization.
"Two interest groups are pushing and fighting … that's the American political way," Fowler said. "I'm a little sorry they spend so much time running into the courts."
Although disrupted by several emotional outbursts, the discussion eventually entered a question-and-answer session, where several members of the community expressed their displeasure with Kruse's viewpoint.
UW student Josh Moss conversely questioned Gaylor's arguments and said the event overall was a success, but revealed a weak point in the FFRF idea.
"I think it went rather well," Moss said. "It mostly showed for the secular side, that there is no room for compromise, and I think that's sad."
UW political science professor John Coleman said the debate was interesting despite making his "blood boil" at certain points.
"I think the discussion was balanced, I thought at times the questioning lost focus of what the specific issues were," Coleman said. "They tended to view everything as an establishment question when in fact that isn't what the Catholic foundation is making."
When asked if the segregated-fee distribution system should be abandoned altogether, Gaylor said the possibility should be considered.
"With the terrible mess that has been opened, that might be the only way out of it," she said.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 10:40am):
Annie Gaylor is and always has been a disgusting human being. She and her organization are not about Freedom From Religion, it is about persecution of Christianity. It is really sad that one can get rich spewing hatred as she and her organization has done since the late 70's. They are on the same level as televangelists who get rich exploiting the poor in the name of Christianity (using religion, whether for or against, to make your millions is WRONG).
If I had one question to ask Annie and her followers, I would have to ask, "Does it make you feel good to have so much hate inside?"
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 1:06pm):
Funny 10:40, you talk about how Annie and her "followers" have so much hate inside, but I'm sure she doesn't go around calling people who disagree with her "disgusting human beings." Yes, the Freedom from Religion Foundation's biggest target in their lawsuits happen to be Christianity. What else do you expect when it is the Christians (namely the Evangelicals) who try to force their views on the government. I guess if you had your way, we'd be teaching our kids in public schools that God created the universe 6000 years ago, dinosaurs and man walked together back in the distant past (you know, maybe 5900 years ago) and that either God put those damn fossils on Earth to test us, or the Devil did it to trick us into not believing "God's word."
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 1:53pm):
Anon 10:40, that's ridiculous. Gaylor and her organization want the government and religion to stay away from each other, and for damn good reason. Separation of church and state makes both stronger. Mixing them tarnishes both.
And before you attack me as another "godless liberal," I say this as a deeply religious Christian.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 3:19pm):
First off, no one can show me where separation of church and state is a part of the founding documents of this country. As a matter of fact, the first amendment states Congress shall pass no law to establish a religion or one to prevent the free exercise of religion. It says NOTHING about religion influencing politics, being in politics, or, for that matter, it states NOTHING about what state governments can do, it applies only to the Federal Government! I guess I will never understand how the first amendment, which is quite clear in that there should be no government religion (such as the Church of England) and the government shall keep their hands out of the religious practices of people, to mean anything Christian shall not be uttered in public (the extent to which Annie and company have taken it).
FFR has done everything they can to prevent the use of public property for Christian purposes. Based on her standards, considering the founding of this country is based on a Christian belief system (to a large extent), we should repeal laws the prohibit murder and theft, since such laws are based on the 10 Commandments.
Please note, I did compare her and her riches to those same, so called Christians, who make a killing exploiting the Christian beliefs of others. She does the same thing using atheism and a profound hate for Christianity.
Perhaps is she showed the same vigor against other religions, wasting court time, wasting tax payer money, I would have more respect for her, but the organizations sole purpose seems to be anti-Christian, and that is unconstitutional. Using her same logic, atheism should be treated as a religion and kept out of politics as well.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 4:50pm):
It seems most logical for every person to be agnostic.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 8:15pm):
Sift and Winnow baby!
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 8:22pm):
A-Laws govern taxes=Fact. B-Spending tax money on religion makes tax laws about religion=Fact. C-Freedom of religion also=Freedom From Religion=Fact. D-Constitution States: No laws regarding or governing religion=Fact. E-Therefore, no public moneys may be spent on religion=Fact. A+B+C+D=E Simple mathematical logic. But, then again, I have HEARD christians say that math is a tool of the devil. What can you really expect from a group who espouses slavery? Jesus never denounced slavery: he endorsed it! He incorporated it into his teachings as if it were the most natural order (which it was for the biblical writers who didn't know any better). Why doesn't the bible--supposedly inspired by an all-loving deity--ever hint that there is something wrong with such a brutal social institution? If it were not for the influence of the bible the appalling American slave trade might have been curtailed, along with the bloody Civil War.
"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." (Luke 12:47-48) The entire context (Luke 12:41-48) shows that this is not part of a parable--it is the explanation of a parable, after Peter asked a question. But even if it were a parable, it would carry the same weight as a teaching of Jesus.
The word "servant" above is doulos, which means "slave" in Greek, and is correctly rendered "slave" by the NRSV, NAS, Scholar's Version, and others.
Keep all this in mind when speaking with or about christians.
Anonymous (March 7, 2007 @ 10:07pm):
So, 3:19, if government can accommodate Christianity in the public sphere, are you ok with government making equal accommodations for Islam? For Judaism? For Buddhism? For Wicca? For Santeria? For Zoroastrianism? For any other religion you can think of? Because if you're not, you're advocating for government to provide greater protection for one religion over all others -- you're advocating for the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.
I understand that people like you think the Constitution is only supposed to protect people exactly like you, but any sane reading of the Founders' intent reveals that you are just plain wrong.
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 6:04am):
This is great, so what you are telling everyone is the simple use of public money (Federal of course, not state) constitutes establishment? So, if I understand you correctly, the US government has ESTABLISHED almost every nation on the face of the Earth? Actually, there is not much, by your definition, that the US has not established. And, by the way, once again, the US Constitution applies to the Feds, Annie is going after the state's rights as well.
I guess you live in a bubble. I know you cannot see it, but it is possible for a religious organization to perform non-religious functions.
To answer the one question regarding how I would feel if money was going to various other religious organizations, I would have no problem with it whatsoever, provided there was no requirement to convert to receive benefit from the program.
10:07, you make some interesting accusations. I want the Constitution to protect everyone, it seems like you want it to protect everyone except Christians. I challenge you to look into the founding documents and find anything that even insinuates your definition of establishment.
I could go on and on (and I usually do). I am just happy that my choice to donate to the UW has resulted in the Establishment of the UW. I expect to see my name on a building some day. "Welcome to the University of WI, established 2007 by DAP". Gosh, I am so important, it makes me sick.
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 9:48am):
Anon 1:53, as much as I disagree with 10:40's characterization of Ms. Gaylor as a disgusting human being, 10:40 is correct that separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution, NOR was it the intent of the Founders (10:07p). In 1954, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black misconstrued Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 to support the justice's own view of "separation of church and state." That nearly every individual posting on this forum tosses around the phrase as if it were axiomatic is evidence of the campaign of misinformation propagated by groups such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
And ANON 1:06p, your obvious distaste for all tenets of the Christian faith undermines any attempt on your part at objectivity. To insult Christians about their belief in the age of the world, in the existence of dinosaurs, etc., is to seriously cast your foregoing opinion in a poor light. In short, you engage in a spit-fire shotgun approach hurling insults at Christians while espousing the importance of separation between church and state...and you WONDER why we Christians feel that our free exercise of religion is being infringed upon?!
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 9:49am):
Incidentally, why even have a disclaimer at the bottom of this page if you won't USE it?!
"...personal attacks or irrelevant comments may be deleted." Hmm...
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 11:10am):
I am all for government spending tax dollars on religion. But we need affirmative action applied when tax dollars are spent. I am a Muslim, we need to level the playing field in the USA. Christian prayers are said in the military, Christian prayer breakfasts and a national day of prayer are observed by certain Federal and State government agencies.
Our money says in God we trust and our pledge says under God. These are plain and simple references to your Christian God. At least one third of our money needs to say in Allah we Trust and the pledge should be recited one nation under Allah every third time in schools, where it is required. My children are Muslim and I feel they are being discriminated against because of all these references to the Christian God and the Prophet Jesus. There are over 1,000,000 followers of Allah in the United States.
Allah is just as likely to be (and actually is) the one true God. Why should my money go to pay for Christianity to further indoctrinate young people with it's lies because the Federal Government and George Bush are mostly Christians. We now have a Muslim in office. Maybe someday, Allah willing, we will have a Muslim majority and things will be run more fairly than how the Christians discriminate against all other religions.
Again, I say, why are Christians spending my money to further their Religious agenda and not spending hardly any on spreading mine? Why?
When African Americans needed help to gain an equal footing laws were enacted to help stop the inequality. The inequality this time is religion. More should be spent to fund Islamic religion in the U.S. because we have been discriminated against in the past. We would have a greater share of the population following Allah were discrimination not occurring.
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 2:00pm):
If federal funds go to a religious organization where there are inadequate safeguards against proselytizing, then it is a violation of the first ammendment. If any laws are passed who's sole defense is a religious doctrine (i.e. ban gay marriage), that is a violation of the first ammendment. It seems pretty simple to me.
FVThinker
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 8:47pm):
9:48 - "To insult Christians about their belief in the age of the world, in the existence of dinosaurs, etc., is to seriously cast your foregoing opinion in a poor light."
Sorry, but the only opinion in a poor light is that of those people who actually believe that crap. I have no problems with Christians who use their faith to enrich their lives, but I have the most serious problem with those who use it to impose their will regardless of fact or line their pockets based on the ignorance and generosity of their followers.
dan Hilbert (March 9, 2007 @ 6:17pm):
10:40. Your comment that Annie Laurie Gaylor is a disgusting person is typical of a Christian's ad hominum argument. By the way, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has a four-star rating by Charity Navigator, their highest rating.
Of course, your bible teaches hate, murder, incest, stoning, and countless burnings and torture of people not of your beliefs. I know Annie and her husband and they are genuinely likable people and very kind.
I am now sitting in the smallest room in my house with the Bible in front of me, reading some of the most hateful pages of your bible. I ran out of ass-wipe and now I am tearing out several pages from the New Testament and they are behind me, cleansing the privates.
Anonymous (March 12, 2007 @ 12:20pm):
"I ran out of ass-wipe and now I am tearing out several pages from the New Testament and they are behind me, cleansing the privates."
I am an atheist and FFRF member, and I think this comment is vulgar, tasteless and adds nothing to the argument. Such personal attacks are clearly offensive and irrelevant and you would do well to avoid posting your comments at all than to disservice yourself with such drivel.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 5:15pm):
Being brainwashed is very comforting, just like kids who believe in Santa Claus. Claiming to be a Christian elevates your standing in the community too, you will appeal to fellow phonies. Who cares if God is a massmurderer, you can just skip those parts in the Bible and focus on the sugarcoated, watered down, sanitzed parts that make you feel good ! The bible is suitable for wiping your ass or burning in a fireplace to generate heat, WISE UP !
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
