Is That Legal?

If memory serves, the protagonists in both "Egypt" and "Japan" are homeschoolers. Sigh. As a secular libertarian who supports homeschooling, it worries me that homeschooling might be perceived as an evangelical Christian thing.

I agree that such books should not be in a public school library. Nevertheless, for the time being, they are. Eric, how about having your daughter check the books out of the library and hold them for the maximum allowable period (30 days?), and then after your daughter returns them, have her check them out again for the maximum period? That way, no one else is exposed to them.

Eric--

You should write a guest column for either the CH News or Herald about this. Unless parents have stuff like this pointed out to them, they'll not know enough to request its removal.

I'm glad to see you have your priorities straight. In a world where your daughter might be raped, might be pressured into doing drugs, might die in a car accident because her friend is drunk behind the wheel, you're spending your time trying to get Christian-themed books banned from schools.

Todd, It's not very nice to venture onto someone's website and suggest that his eight-year-old daughter might be raped or killed. But at least you have your priorities straight. In a world where children can be raped or die in car accidents, you spend your time critiquing legal arguments you do not seem to understand.

Todd, IMO, this is appropriate.

When I have kids, I **don't** want the State having book encourage one religion Or another, even if that Religion is Mine.

I'll teach or get my kids Religion Education, thank you.

Also, I think Prof. Mueller would object to a book pushing ANY religion and denigrating another one in a State school.

Posted by: Dabney at April 18, 2005 07:04 AM

"you're spending your time trying to get Christian-themed books banned from schools."

No he is not trying to get Christian themed books banned from schools. He is trying to get books that are inaccurate and defame other religions off an extra credit book shelf.

Unless, wait, are you saying that it is "Christian" to defame other religions?

I second Dabney's comment. Maybe the Raleigh N&O as well.

To Todd: Would you feel equally dismissive of this issue if this were a book that preached Islam and characterized Christianity as bad? And what about your priorities? Why are you wasting your time writing blog comments, when you could be out on the streets fighting evil? Or have the cape and spandex bodysuit not come back from the dry cleaners yet? :)

Seriously, there are all sorts of important issues out there, many of which are arguably much more important than this one, but that does not mean that this is not an important issue that merits serious discussion. If you have good reasons why a book like this belongs in a public elementary school library, which is paid for by citizens of all faiths, I would be interested in reading them.

And from the other side there's this, which is worth reading for the insight it provides -
"Parent Files Challenge
... contacted the Pacific Justice Institute after she noticed her 7th grade child's textbook had a distinct bias toward Islam over Christianity. ...
the greatest controversy has been found with reports of students in other school districts being instructed to carry out actual practices of Islam including adopting Islamic names, building model mosques, and memorizing scripture from the Quran...."
at
http://www.blessedcause.org/Encourage/Parent%20Files%20Challenge.htm

Wow, that's very disturbing stuff. It seems to be pure religious propaganda, and slanders not only Islam, but Egypt. There have been Christians in Egypt for nearly as long as Christianity has existed, and they live there today in relative peace with their Muslim neighbors. I don't imagine Egypt is the best place in the world to be Christian, but I also don't think they get their tires slashed on a daily basis, and most of them have managed to survive for generations without escaping to the US.

Besides the specific problems with RL's curriculum though, I find it a little disturbing that schools are outsourcing their reading programs to this degree in the first place. It sounds like RL, through its reading lists, quizzes, and evalution software, isn't just providing teaching tools, but acting as a surrogate teacher itself. It looks almost like a stealth form of school privatization.

BTW, I agree entirely with those who responded to Todd, but it's worth remembering that there are a lot of Todds out there (and many of them have their own shows on FoxNews). Any challenge to these books is going to be met with howls of outrage against "anti-Christian liberals." That's certainly not a reason not to challenge them -- we can't let ourselves be bullied into silence on any important issue -- but it would be a good idea to try to prepare as much as possible for that sort of attack.

Todd presents an interesting algorithm for making our choices in life:

Before doing anything, ask "will this make my child less likely to be raped/killed/addicted?"

And lo! the complexities of life fall away.

(Childless? Sorry, you'll just have to figure things out without the aid of Todd's Algorithm.)

You know, Todd, I've dedicated a lot of my life to your concerns. I've advocated for victims rights vs. murder, lobbied against rape and sexual abuse, decried teen drinking and drug use...

... and still I find the idea of these books in our public school system the most heinous thing of all.

Thanks, Eric, for bringing something that is important to our attention.

Johnny

I think Todd is absolutely correct -- every time we discuss a book, we lose one more opportunity to band together and fight the child rapists. No to books! Book discussion is kiddie rape!

Clearly Eric Muller still has some Malkin fans lurking around his blog.

It is not clear to me what the objection is supposed to be to having these books available in a library or as an option for extra credit reading.

If it is that these books make some assertions about what's true about the world, then that's not a good objection. Many books do this and are not thereby banned.

If it is that these books make false claims about the world, then that's not a good objection either. Lots of books do this, too, and are not thereby banned.

If it is that these books make religious claims about the world, then that's not a good objection either. This objection is the same as the first one, except that this objection adds 'religious' in front of 'claims'. But why should that make a difference? It's still a claim about what's true about the world. And that by itself is not objectionable.

If the objection is that these religious books are found in a public school library, then that's not a good objection. Lots of secular books are found in religious schools, and that's no cause for alarm. Moreover, the books are not required reading.

If the objection is that these books might convert some kids to Christianity, then that's not a good objection (unless you think it's bad to convert to Christianity--in which case I suspect that's the real objection here). I suspect that our worries that kids will read these books and be converted are wholly unfounded and exaggerated. Surely kids who read these books will not drop to their knees and repent. It might raise questions about Christianity, to be sure, but is that bad? Those who think Christianity is false can take that good opportunity to talk to their kids about religion.

Perhaps I have not considered the real objection to having these books in the library. I am sure some of you can show me what that is. I would appreciate a clear statement of that objection, along with some reasons to think that the objection is a good one.

The objection, Shawn, is that these books are recommended reading, and yet are defamatory to a particular religion. Imagine if the school had a book about Judaism written by a Nazi, and it was on the list for extra credit. That is the point.

If you don't see how this book defames Islam, then you don't know anything about Islam.

Richard, the First Amendment problem, if there is one, can't be that these books "defame" any particular religion, because, whatever the First Amendment means, it doesn't provide standards for judging whether a particular book defames a religion, much less justification for banning such a book from our public schools.

Shawn: While I think the questions raised by these books are closer than Eric does, I also think their reported use raises serious questions that go beyond defamation of other religions than Christianity. Specifically the books, at least on the surface, seem focusedly designed to encourage conversion to Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not actually very effective for this purpose with non-Christians, though I don't know. Be that as it may, based on the descriptions and excertps here, the books also are written from a perspective that implicitly and explicitly conveys the message that Christianity is the only satisfactory religion.

In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with books ecouraging conversion or affirming that Christianity is the only good religion. However, it is not acceptable (both as a matter of Constitutional Law and decent social practice) for the government to endorse or promote these positions. And it is even more problematical in the context of elementary schools because children (by and large) have less critical capacity than adults, because of the control that schools have over children's lives for much of the day, and because of the respect that children, in a well run school, should have for the opinions of their teachers and principal.

Thus, it would clearly be wrong (and also unconstitutional) for a public school teacher to assign these books as required regular class reading. (Unless the teacher approached them from a deconstructionist perspective, or made a comparative study with Lubovitcher Jewish proselytising literature or something, none of which seems realistic, or prudent, in a public school setting.)

If the books were just part of the library collection, there would be much less of a problem. I doubt there would be any constitutional violation. I still think that it would be bad practice in a public elemenatary school context given the focus of the books described above and given that the books seem to have limited cultural merit apart from their practical function of advancing Christianity (which is a worthy function for a book in a church library, but questionable in a school context). The books, in this regard appear different from, say, religious books by CS Lewis, the bible, or even a book or bible stories. And if a public school library chose to stock books like these, I would expect it to have similar texts from a variety of religions, or I'd be suspicious of the motivation.

The use of these books in a special reading program, with tests, prizes, encouragement from teachers, etc. seems to make this more like the class assignment and less like just having books on the shelf. And, I'd want to know if there are analogous books representing other religions in the special reading program list at the particular school. Though, even if there were, I don't think it would be appropriate to the extent that the books were directly promoting religions and had little other cultural value.

I should add that, while the big issue here is government promoting religion, I personally consider it to be inappropriate to proselytize children, even in purely private contexts, without first getting specific permission from their parents.

Unfortunately, these books aren't in the UNC libraries, so I can't check the content, but this review on H-Net rates it advisory "... for adolescent[s]..."

Although this book contains a religious focus, young readers can gain from this book an understanding of the politics and economics that influence religious practices and interpretations of theological concepts. This book was published to proselytize on behalf of Christianity; but it also portrays how people in one society and economic status learn to cope with social pressures through religion. Escape from Egypt is an addition to a multicultural curriculum as long as the reader understands the religious biases of the author and publisher.

The book was reviewed in the context of African studies, and the reviewer notes the paucacity of alternative novellas for girls "...which describe contemporary Eygpt".

H-Net is lightly peer-reviewed, but not fully ( see site). If this review is accurate , then the real problem may be age appropriateness. This could strengthen the case against CHCS , but may seriously weaken the one against RL.

I think there's only one thing to do here; a full-on deathmoot. ABA vs ALA. 1st ammendment vs 1st ammendment. A rumble. Judge Sally Greene presiding?

Simon

Yes, Simon, I've seen that review. And I think it strengthens the case against RL rather than weakening it.

The review notes that the book is appropriate only "as long as the reader understands the religious biases of the author and publisher."

Here's the thing: the whole idea behind RL's "Accelerated Reader" program is that it is entirely student-directed. That is its charm: students choose books from a preselected list, read them, and then take a reading comprehension quiz on the computer entirely without teacher involvement.

So RL is recommending these books, and preparing quizzes for them, knowing (and, quite frankly, intending) that elementary school students will receive no guidance about their content whatsoever.

What's worse, RL's one interaction with the student--the quiz it writes--does nothing to "help the student understand the religious biases of the author and publisher." It does just the opposite, in fact: as noted in the blog post, its reading comprehension questions tend to cement rather than challenge those biases.

I am enjoying the more civilized tone this thread is taking, and in particular the thoughtful posts from Martin and Shawn.

Shawn argues, in essence, that books must have either a "religious" or a "secular" perspective, and therefore it is unfair (if not unconstitutional) to favor "secular" books over "religious" ones, or to impose any special disability on "religious" books in public life. This argument is incorrect for three reasons.

First, many, if not most, books are best described as religiously neutral. The Cat in the Hat, for example, takes no position whatsoever on spriritual issues, and just because no one is led to Jesus at the end of the story does not mean the book is "secular" in content. It is a false dichotomy to divide all forms of expression into the "religious" and the "secular."

Second, religious expression is not, and should not be, treated the same as secular expression in either law or policy. Religious views are more closely held and more important to adherents than virtually any "secular" perspectives. Precisely because religious beliefs are so powerful and important, the First Amendment imposes special protections (the Free Exercise Clause) and special disabilities (the Establishment Clause) on religion. There is no constitutional obstacle to the "establishment" of a secular society, but neither is there any special constitutional protection for the "exercise" of secular belief systems. The parity argument, in other words, is not supported by the text of the First Amendment and gives short shrift to the unique power of religious beliefs.

Finally, it is important to remember that Establishment Clause jurisprudence, which imposes special disabilities on religions, is not anti-religious; it protects religion. By preventing government endorsements of particular religious perspectives, the Establishment Clause (1) protects minority faiths from the the hegemony of mainstream beliefs, (2) protects the rights of parents to impart religious beliefs to their children without state interference, (3) prevents religions from being degraded by the influence of majoritarian politics, (4) reduces diviseness among religious sects caused by the competition for public goods and public promotion, and (5) strengthens faith by protecting doubt, and thereby preventing religious belief from devolving into unquestioned state-sponsored orthodoxy.

(For the record, I agree with Martin that the school's promotion of these books through a special reading program plainly violates the First Amendment, but that merely shelving them in the library probably would not. The latter question would depend, however, on the reasons the school acquired these books in the first place and whether other religious perspectives are also represented in the stacks.)

Wow! Anyone else want to volunteer to show they can't understand a fairly straight-forward post?...

Me! Me! Among other things, the assumption that you have to deal with problems one at a time is ... how can I put this? ... dumb. Not only that, some of us don't consider Christianity or forced proselytization a useful contribution to solving the problems you cite.

On the legal question, since I wouldn't want to waste a post just replying to someone like Mr. Sweeney, it strikes me as unlikely that legal action against anyone except the school itself would be viable: too many choice points where the other actors can say "the school should have....".

I will try to avoid swearing, but WHAT THE FUCK! As an Egyptian, no longer Muslim though, I am insulted. Fully 10% of Egypt's population is Christian. Christmas is a state recognized holiday. My Muslim family members were wishing their Christian neighbors and local shopkeepers that were Christian a Merry Christmas and there were Christmas trees and Christmas carols in many restaurants when we went out.

Many of my parents closest friends in Egypt are devout Christians, some of whom are here (and during a discuission of race relations said that Egyptian Christians are better off relative to the rest of society than American blacks are in comparison to the rest of American society).

Muslims know who Jesus is, considering that after Mohammed, Jesus and Mary are #2 and #3 for mentions in the Koran. Especially when you consider that Muslims believe Jesus will be the one to greet you at Heaven on Judgement Day. Good God is this book insulting. Fight the good fight Eric. I can't get too mad at you for raising my blood pressure today.

Jonathan Dresner:

There is clear precedent that an injunction can fall on BOTH the state and the private party, but I think that it would be impossible to get an injunction against the private party without an injunction on the state. RL would certainly be found to be a "state actor" because of their relationship with the schools.

From my reading of Rule 19 in the Rules of Civil Procedure I think that it would be impossible to push a claim against RL without including the school districts. I believe that the school districts fall under the purview of Indispensable Parties as they would be barred from contracting with RL if RL refused to remove these books. So, even though RL is a state actor, any suit would have to be filed against BOTH the scholl district and RL.

However, I've been wondering if maybe a claim of tortuous interference could be made against RL. This would cut out the problem of trying to prove that they are acting as agents of the state, and there would be no need to include the individual school districts in the suit.

Any thoughts?

I know I'm coming in late to the conversation, but I just wanted to defend the accelerated reader program a little (I agree that these proselytizing books don't belong on the list). My daughter, a firstgrader, participates in the accelerated reading program, and it is great. It allows students to progress at their own pace while reading interesting books that they get to choose. There is no way that an individual teacher, school, or even school district could create the software, the questions, or even administer the program without the help of an outside company. Teachers don't have time to provide context for every book, but the trade off is well worth making. Although my first grader did not read at the beginning of the academic year, she is now reading the Chronicles of Narnia (on her own, I don't think that they are part of the program). It was the ability to read interesting "chapter books" as quickly as she could that has allowed her to make such progress. Much better than anything I had as a student in the benighted 80s.

Catfish, my beef is not with the Accelerated Reader program generally. It's with Renaissance Learning's inclusion of these books in its offerings to public elementary schools, especially in a context in which it knows and intends that there will be no teacher engagement with the students about what they're reading.

I must say that the fruit of Islam in modern times has been tragic, regressive and oppressing. You seem to imply that it is wrong for one religion to hold itself out as right and to condemn other religions as wrong. Nothing is further from the truth!
If one beleives in Buddah, it is impossible for him to beleive that Jesus is the one true God. If one beleives in Allah, he cannot beleive Jesus is who he said he was.
It is naieve and foolish to think that religions must change in order to get along with other religions. Fight to add things into a curriculam.Don't try an take things out.

Eric,

I think we agree on this issue. I was responding to a post earlier in the thread who raised the question that these sorts of programs were "outsourcing" or "privatizing" education. This worries me because the accelerated reading program works. It is especially important for public schools to be able to tailor their curriculumn to individual needs, and the only way to do this effciently is through software programs like this one. I agree that these sorts of proselytizing books should not be part of the reading program. I'm conflicted about removing them from the library completely. I guess it would depend on the mechanism by which books are approved, challenged, or removed.

Courtesy of the philosopher,Walter Kaufmann: A prosolyte approached the famous rabbi, Shammai, and posed the proposition, "Teach me the whole of the Torah while standing on one foot." Shammai dismissed the prosolyte. The prosolyte then approached the famous rabbi, Hillel and posed the same challenge. Hillel replies, "What you don't like, don't do to others. That is the law and the whole law. The rest is mere commentary."

As an opinionated agnostic I would object to any accelerated reading offering that would denigrate my beliefs in favor of Christian beliefs. And, I am sure that almost all of my Christian acquaintances would be wax extremely wroth at the denigration of Christian belief in favor of the positions of my opinionated agnosticism.

Wow. This is very disturbing indeed (and I have to chime in with Mo on the WTF reaction, it looks like the author has never been anywhere near Egypt or anywhere in the Middle East!)

I have make another pedantic point on one relatively minor detail: the "seedy" hotel. In Cairo?? Yeah sure I bet there's seedy hotels there too, like anywhere in the world, and maybe a nice Christian family wouldn't go lodge in a sinfully luxurious 4 or 5 star (no matter they're at least half as cheap as the 4 or 5 stars in Europe), but really... at the risk of advertising for the Egyptian tourist industry (which certainly doesn't need my help!), this is what you get for 30 dollars a night, for gosh's sake... 3 stars, with restaurants, view on the Nile, internet access... For "seedy" you'd have to go to 5 dollars a night, backpacker style, and an entire family being able to afford the flight from the US would at least get a 3 star, wouldn't they? Pah! Why not title the book "Arabs are nasty dirty bastards unless they convert to our own brand of religion", that'd be more honest.

"If one beleives in Buddah, it is impossible for him to beleive that Jesus is the one true God."

Incorrect. Buddha taught on matters unrelated to who might be the "one true God." He certainly did not make any such claims for himself.

" If one beleives in Allah, he cannot beleive Jesus is who he said he was."

Depends on what you think Jesus said about himself. As was noted above, Isa (Jesus) is a significant figure in the Koran. In that document, he does not claim divinity.

"You seem to imply that it is wrong for one religion to hold itself out as right and to condemn other religions as wrong."

No one here has declared it wrong for adherents of a religion to proselytize for their beliefs. What has been said is that it is inappropriate for the government to promote one religion over another, which is what is effectively happening in this case. Bear in mind, as others have pointed out, that this also protects your own religion.

I know it's a bit of a stretch, but if you're set on condemning other religions, you might try to learn something about them first, so you know what you're condemning. Likewise, if you want to take part in a conversation, you might want to pay attention and understand what other people are actually saying before responding to them. Just a thought.

The person who wrote Escape from Egypt has a very distorted picture of life in Egypt and an even worse understanding of Islam. Christians in Egypt (and other Arab countries) have survived under 1,400 years of Islamic rule. Although they might not have always been treated equally based on modern standards, they generally got along well with their fellow Muslims - and were treated far better than Muslims and other non-Christians (especially Jews) were historically treated in Christian lands. The fact that religious minorities are sometimes mistreated by ignorant and extremist followers in majority Muslim countries (like Egypt) doesn't reflect on Islam any more than the fact that Muslim minorities are sometimes mistreated in Christian countries (like Bosnia and Serbia) reflects on Christianity.

One major flaw of Escape from Egypt is that it's all wrapped up in the misconception that Muslims worship a different god and that Islam has nothing in common with Christianity. Muslims see this as being due to the fact that Evangelists, with their Trinitarian God and Incarnate Jesus, are intimidated by the pure Abrahamic monotheism of Islam. Due to this, they simply try to poison the well by claiming that "Allah" is a different God -- although Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. Indeed, Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians use the word "Allah", since this is simply the Arabic word for God. Those interested in reading more details about this should read Who is Allah? and One God, Many Names. The way "Allah" is portrayed as a remote, angry and somewhat incompetent deity in Escape from Egypt, is just a reflection of the narrow-minded, if not simple-minded, author. If she'd ever picked up a copy of the Qur'an, she'd know that the first words are "In the Name of God, the All-Compassionate, the All-Merciful" -- and emphasis on Divine grace and forgiveness permeate the Qur'an.

Public schools have no business carrying books which openly proselytize to a particular religion and they have even less business carrying books that are factually inaccurate about certain religions. I pray that the author of Escape from Egypt and those who support her will actually read and practice the commandment about "Not Bearing False Witness" instead of just paying lip-service to it.

Oh, my goodness. Reading your arguements saddens my heart. You both (sides of the dispute) should be ashamed. Exercising the freedoms of being an American citizen means we attempt tolerence, also it means you have the right to choose not to read the book. Not the right to deny it from others who find it and choose to read it and may or may not be of like mind. Enjoy the PEACE of your opinions championed by the American experiment, not the ugly intolerence our fore fathers came here to escape from. Wake up. Grow up. Evolve, listen, forgive.

Andrew, so what part of this book expresses tolerance?

This is a children's book in a public school we are dealing with. Children don't have the "freedom" that adults have to choose. Furthermore, this book injects an unfair view of religion onto an unsuspecting child.

What is "tolerant" about proselytizing children? It's a form of abuse, as far as I'm concerned.

Columbia County, GA, just west of Augusta, GA, does not carry these books. Thanks for pointing these books out to us. I think people who find these books in their county's school libraries should find out on what basis they were chosen. At the very least, these libraries should acquire materials which provide more accurate pictures of non-Christian peoples.