 |
 |
|
|
|
| This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what the programs mean to you. |
|
 |
|
|
|
Select a title listed below to read commentaries about that program from other listeners and contribute your own thoughts.
2003
The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (May 30, 2003)
Homosexuality and the Divided Church (Aug. 8, 2003)
Marriage in Our Time Part II: Women, Marriage, and Religion (Aug. 1, 2003)
Marriage in Our Time Part I: Marriage, Divorce and Scripture (July 25, 2003)
The Soul in Depression (July 18, 2003)
Science and Being (July 11, 2003)
Religious Liberty in America: The Legacy of Church and State (July 4, 2003)
Sprituality and Sexuality (June 27)
Joe Carter and the Legacy of the African-American Spiritual (May 9)
Stories Behind the Story: Easter and Passover (April 18)
Children of Abraham (April 4)
Religion in a Time of War (March)
Faith and Politics in America (February)
The Soul in Depression (January)
FIND MORE PROGRAMS |
|
 |
|
|
|
| To contact the production staff, or to leave other feedback about the program itself, please e-mail us. |
|
|
|
| Reflections on "Religious Liberty in America: The Legacy of Church and State" |
|
|
|
 We speak with people who are exploring the dynamic between religion and public life in novel-and sometimes uncomfortable-ways. Listen as Krista and our guests discuss the origins of the separation of church and state, the loss and reemergence of religious expression in tribal public life, and the American public school system. Listen |
|
What is your view of the way the separation of church and state is practiced in American life? What did you think of the perspectives of the guests in this program?
Please share your thoughts.
|
A Reflection from the Editor (January 28, 2004)
We were pleased to have such thoughtful reflections from listeners on this program, at the same time we were somewhat surprised to find the reactions tended to fall into two categories: unmitigated applause on the one hand, and firm defenders of the principle of separation on the other.
Our hopes for the program were to really lay out, without prejudice, a story that most of us (at SOF) had missed. This involved exploring the first amendment's unavoidable tension between the right to "free expression of religion" and its simultaneous prohibition of "established" religion.
But it also involved finding out that many people and groups who have championed the first amendment did not have religious freedom uppermost on their agenda. Instead they used the principle of separation to do exactly what the first amendment aims to prevent: exercise religious chauvinism and prejudice. Rather than a firm and unyielding principle of constitutional law, we found the story of an important American ideal that has flourished in many cases for all the wrong reasons and still managed to survive as a guarantee of religious liberty.
The point here is not whether we should honor the principle of separation. That we take as a given. Rather, the history of this principle forces all of us to care about how we as a nation are living out its ideals in a culture of increasing religious diversity.
|
Enlightened and Fair Discussion (January 19, 2004)
That was the most enlightening and fair discussion of the subject I have ever come across. It dispelled a lot of the mythology which has surrounded this matter for as long as I can remember. Thank you! Prof. Hamburger's scholarly contribution was a remarkably good choice in a well-presented program.
I am old enough to remember Justice Black's appointment to the Court, and the mention of his former KKK affiliation, well glossed over at the time, but I never connected it to his resurrection of the phrase and its origin. You will doubtless receive a lot of flak from those who want to hang on to their embedded position, facts notwithstanding, and those who use the "separation" part of the Constitutional Amendment as a mantra while completely ignoring the "free exercise" portion. Keep up the good work, and I look forward to next week's conclusion of the topic.
Robert Gillin
Scarsdale, NY (WNYC 820-AM)
|
Can Religion Be Taught Objectively? (January 17, 2004)
While I found the guests to be thoughtful, I am not convinced of the wisdom of teaching religion in the public school system. At its core, any religion is based on faith, and I don't think that faith-based ideas should be taught in the schools. While it is true that science has been wrong before and will be again, it is also verifiable and has mechanisms to prove or disprove facts. Has religious knowledge advanced in thousands of years? While I would agree that an educated person should know about religions, since they shape so many people's world views, I do not believe that the subject can be taught in a fair and objective manner.
Michael Batson
Staten Island, NY (WNYC 820-AM)
|
Reason and Objectivity (January 21, 2004)
Thank you for presenting the issue of Separation of Church and State with reason and objectivity without frothy emotional appeals to piety. Our modern interpretation of 1st Amendment Rights seems to encourage Freedom FROM Religion instead of Freedom OF Religion. I was thrilled to hear your program approach faith with such reasonable insights as to how to express one's faith in public life and why it is so vital in America.
Daniel Edelen
Lexington, KY (WEKU 88.9-FM)
|
Where do we go from here, then? (January 20, 2004)
I will accept that perhaps not all of the original reasons for separating the governing process from any particular religious preference were pure. However, I get the feeling that the guest's pointing out this particular point of anti-Catholic "racism" as a reason for the judicial decision for deciding on the separation of church and state is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There still remains a reason that this principal of governing has stayed in place all of these years. Could it be that despite the virulent "racism" that may have had a part in leading to it historically that it nonetheless remains a good idea?
The problem still remains: how can we govern in any kind of fair manner if a subject as intensely personal and passionate as ones religious preferences gets thrown into the mix? How does this subject affect teaching in public schools? What happens to those who have no desire to associate themselves with a religious affiliation?
Those who feel that by bringing up the above questions are simply apologists for a scientific or evolutionary viewpoint miss the point. Many of us are truly concerned with the subtle coercive effects of a religious culture that endorses an evangelical and proselytizing form of practice in their religion. And I am especially concerned if any one form of religious expression becomes predominant in a government that is supposed to represent all of us.
Scott Cullen-Benson
Oakdale, MN (KNOW 91.1-FM) |
|
|
|
|
