San Antonio and the Jewish Community

    After reading Dr. Chancey's article, I was curious to see if their were any schools in San Antonio that taught religion classes. Unfortunately none do which is interesting because we have many religious private and charter schools. Maybe this is why the public schools do not offer any religion classes because they could always go to one of these alternative schools. This is just a theory, albeit a very bad one, rationalizing why these courses are not offered. Another reason could be because since about 30% of San Antonio's population consists of Catholics which a lot of private schools cater to. Fortunately students can form clubs to talk about their own religious beliefs but in my experience, as well as looking on the web, the most common club that is formed are Christian groups like the Christian Fellowship Association.
No public school in San Antonio, that I know of, has a organization that caters for the Jewish community.       However, with the examples that Dr. Chancey provides when discussing how Judaism is taught in public schools is disturbing. These classes contain "the theme that the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament consists of numerous prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament permeates some courses" which is not a very academic way of teaching those courses (41). They try and draw any comparison they can about how the Hebrew bible relates to Jesus.
     In San Antonio there is one charter school that caters to the Jewish community called the Eleanor Kolitz Hebrew Language Academy located on NW Military Hwy. This school caters to the needs of the Jewish children by not only providing the standard education required by the state of Texas, but also offering classes on the Hebrew Bible, Jewish history and Hebrew language. There has been a lot of attention on this school because there is no separation of the church and the school but is that really problematic? In this one article, Trying to Keep Religion Out of Charter School Classes Egar Walters, he talks about the school and how it is run. In my opinion I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Here is a place where these children could go to learn about their religious culture without having it skewed based on the beliefs of a teacher. My question is though is why have the San Antonio schools not permitted religious classes even though there is the a law that says they can? Then should the private and charter schools be looked criticized because they allow their students to partake in these classes?

What Does Separation of Church and State Mean?

Recently, the American Library Assn. released their list of the top ten banned and challenged books of 2015. Many books were expected, with people complaining of sexually explicit content and offensive language. However, one book stood out as being different from the others. Yes, coming in at number six on the list is the Bible. The arguments used to oppose the Bible did not center on its content being inappropriate, rather that its presence in public schools violated separation of church and state.

This argument against the Bible’s mere presence in a public school shows that our understanding of separation of church and state is flawed. There is a difference between having a religious text in a library and promoting belief in a religion. It is important to see this distinction when we think about separation of church and state. Mark Chancey’s “Reading, Writing & Religion II” further calls for understanding of this distinction as he shows how Texas public schools struggle to teach appropriate Bible courses. A significant stumbling block for Texas public schools in teaching Bible courses is the lack of guidelines and training available to teachers. Many teachers just do not know how to teach a Bible course without a Christian bias.

Whether it is a Bible class or a Bible in the library, a bias promoting religion is not inherently present. A boundary has to be crossed for there to be a violation of separation between church and state. Many classes taught in Texas public schools cross this boundary, and it is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, I find it more unlikely that libraries are crossing this boundary. Unless a library only has books that promote a certain religion, I see no problem with there being a Bible or a Qur’an or any religious text in a public library. James LaRue, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom refers to this list of challenged books, saying “As a society, considering an “index of complaints” helps us to understand who we are and where we’re going. Cultures change over time, and the things we fear, or celebrate, change with them.” The Bible’s appearance on this list for the first time as well as other books being challenged based on a “religious viewpoint” shows that a concern with religion is on the rise.

Sources:

Ban the Bible? The top 10 banned or challenged books of 2015

‘The Holy Bible’ Makes Library Association’s List Of Most ‘Challenged’ Books

Defining Diversity

Reading, Writing & Religion II

Cheering for Christianity

The book Reading, Writing Religion II by Mark Chancey reminded me of a court case from a few years back concerning high school football and Christian banners held by the cheerleaders before the games began. While Chancey was concerned with how the public schools were not handling their religious curriculum in the right manner, this public school in Kountze, Texas received national news and even comments from Ted Cruz (Presidential nominee 2016), John Cornyn, and Rick Perry concerning how religious signs were being handled by a school district. The Republicans previously named were in  favor of the petitioners (the cheerleaders) rather than KISD who argued that the banners were a direct representation of the school so they must be approved by the school and follow all school ideals, making them "government speech." To explain further: the school originally allowed the cheerleaders to write whatever they wanted on their banners, then they began to put Christian messages, then non-Christians including the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) so they banned religious signs....then the school reinstated the ability to make religious signs but they needed to be approved by the school and be in strict adherence to the school policies which basically meant that the cheerleaders were back to not being able to write religious signs for football games. The public argued that “while all students have the right to practice their faith privately in the public-school setting, official religious promotion alienates and excludes students of minority faiths and nonbelievers and sparks religious tensions and divisiveness within school districts.” At the end of this entire debacle, the Texas government came together to require KISD to exercise their freedom of speech and paint whatever they wanted on their football banners. The relevance of this court case to Chancey's book is that in Texas, Protestant Christian values and views are prominent in schools (which is why the cheerleaders were able to use these signs for weeks before people began to complain), and prominent in Texas government because Republicans like Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Rick Perry were able to weigh in on the case and vote in favor of the cheerleaders. The Bible continues to be taught in some public schools, typically at the hands of a Protestant Christian, and education boards will have a hard time limiting the use of the Bible in schools while the government still favors Christianity. Further, if the school districts change the way the Bible is used in schools whether it be through classroom teaching, football banners, or prayers before graduation, there is a good chance that the public will fight back to have their Christian views restored and the conservative Republican officials representing an Evangelical base will most likely help them achieve these goals. 

Does Berlinerblau Still Work?

My main question after this week's readings is whether or not the theories posed by the authors can be said to hold for this election cycle. I'm focusing on Berlinerblau as that's the reading I'm covering during discussion, and I agreed with many of his conclusions about recent elections, and the rapid increase in religious speech during presidential events. If I understand correctly, he posed a theory that, unless the secular side of America became more effective, religious speech would increasingly show up in political speech.

Now that we're in the middle of a presidential race, I wonder if his theory holds true. Certainly, religious speech has appeared in debates thus far, but for his theory to hold true it would have to be present more than in previous elections. I don't know if this argument holds true. From doing research, I know Cruz comes from a highly religious family, but it seems like he's somewhat minimized the amount of biblical speech in his debates. To be fair, I haven't watched all of them, but I have watched a few and it seems like by-and-large, thanks to Trump's version of rhetoric, that biblical references aren't what the crowds are shouting for now, being set aside for bold accusations, name calling, and extreme plans that hinge on fears held by right wing Americans. In my opinion, Berlinerblau was spot on when talking about previous elections, but things have shifted and I don't know if the slope will continue to increase.

Political Issues

            Politics and the Bible have a rather tenuous relationship in the United States, given that there is a separation between Church and State, but political delegates are often religiously affiliated.  As seen by the current presidential primary debates, many candidates see the Bible as a tool to use in order to secure votes.  Usually, the usage is backed up by the candidate’s personal beliefs, but it is nonetheless a tool for their success.

            Clearly, political use of the bible and biblical rhetoric is seen differently by politicians and by academics.  The political side sees the text as providing answers, whereas an academic reader sees the same text as a question (Berlinerblau 15).  This difference in reading dictates the action that the person will take with it.  Instead of looking for discrepancies and context, it is much more likely that the politician or candidate will simply use the verse that suits their needs.  While this has proven effective, it has also caused quite a few problems.  In the case of political arguments that Leviticus disallows gay marriage, the usual response is that Leviticus also disallows mixed fabrics.  The lack of context in the initial claim is enough to anger opponents and cause a general ruckus in the political realm. More recently, the “two Corinthians” debacle with Donald Drumpf has called attention to the importance of knowing more than the text alone—a political candidate can fall under fire for not being familiar with the specific title of a section of the bible.

            While church and state are ‘separated,’ they remain intertwined, and knowledge of both realms is crucial for the success of political candidates.  It does not matter which party or what stance, a familiarity with the text and knowledge of the terminology associated are helpful for any politician. 

A Christian Government

     I find it interesting that there has been an increasing trend of politicians, especially those in presidency, using scripture and religious language to guide their agendas. Continuously, the United States has claimed to not be a Christian nation but was founded with strong Christian ideals. Thomas Jefferson famously stated, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." The clause in the First Amendment in the Constitution allows people to exercise their own religious practices without persecution. Why then has both the US presidency, Senate or Congress been completely immersed in Christianity. Below is a list of the religious denominations of all of the Presidents and as you can see, there have only been three non-Christians who have sat in the presidency seat. 

     In conducting my search of religious affiliations in political positions, I discovered that until recently in 2012 there had never before been any Middle Eastern religious practices in one of the three power houses that run our country. Again I ask, why has it taken so long to accept these non-Christian denominations into power? One possibility could be that with the changing societal norms, people have finally reached the mind set that if we can have an African American as a President, we can begin to accept others who have previously been rejected from these places of political power.
History in the Making

Keeping up Appearances in Politics and Religion

As we approach the presidential election later this year, it is easier than ever to see the how the Bible influences candidates’ campaigns and voters’ views on the election. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, I saw a friend’s grandmother post an article in support of Ted Cruz, and it had been followed up with a very memorable comment: “I believe that Ted Cruz is the best candidate for the position and be the next president of the United States of America… Why? Because he is a true believer in Christ.” Questionable syntax and reasoning aside, this serves as just one example of how some can be greatly influenced by religion in the political sphere.

In “The Bible in the Presidential Elections,” Jacques Berlinerblau explores some of the ways in which politicians use the Bible but also discusses broader concepts such as the distinction, or lack thereof, between primary scripture and the interpretation of scripture that has become so commonly used in religious circles. Berlinerblau argues that “religious folks typically fail to grasp the difference between their primary scriptures and the millennia of hermeneutical interpretation that…often drowns out the originals” (24). This summation suggests that the interpretation of scripture is being given authority by those in different religious communities, elevating the status of these interpretations, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to something like scripture themselves. In fact, interpretation is already so embedded in the scripture that it is accepted as the true word of God by some groups. Berlinerblau cites a passage that is generally read as a condemnation of homosexuality, explaining that a biblical scholar “would not translate or interpret…these verses as an unambiguous repudiation of same-sex eroticism,” but it has become so commonly seen as such that many accept this interpretation as authoritative (25).

However, this interpretation through translation may be the only interpretation given when scripture is used in a political setting. Berlinerblau goes on to say that “scriptural allusions were almost always the essence of brevity” in attempts to “hurry through or even conceal one’s faith-based pandering” (27, 29). His discussion of this phenomenon makes such references seem insincere, more similar to name-dropping than clarifying meaning or ideas. While this section raises the issue of the legitimacy and sincerity of these references by many politicians, it may also make one wonder what exactly the general public, who has become so used to and reliant upon interpretation, really make of these allusions. With politicians skating over biblical references and not, in reality, applying the ideas they espouse to their politics and audiences accepting rushed quotations as a display of piety without really considering the meaning of the scripture, it appears that the use of the Bible in politics is almost entirely superficial—a show put on both by candidates and voters to put their piety on display.

Cruz's Christian Campaign

How do we as scholars of religion respond when the Bible is used by politicians? Jacques Berlinerblau spends some time pondering this question in his article “The Bible in Presidential Elections”. He notes that it is difficult due to how the Bible is used in a scholarly setting is so much different from how the Bible is used in the public square. To sum up this disconnect, he says “When a professional biblical scholar reads a verse, she sees a question. When a politician reads a verse, she sees an answer”(15).

In the current presidential race, Ted Cruz is relying heavily on the Bible and his Christian faith for answers to contemporary questions. On his campaign website you can sign up to be a part of his National Prayer Team, where you’ll receive a weekly email with prayer requests and a short devotional. One of the nine issues emphasized on Cruz’s website is religious liberty, which interestingly seems to focus on the liberties of just one religion - evangelical Christianity.

Berlinerblau warned of sermonizing candidates like Rick Perry in his article, saying “either biblical knowledge ventures forth from the cloistered sanctuary of specialization or its obsolescence in these matters of concern will continue to be the norm”(36). It seems that Berlinerblau’s conclusion was correct. Ted Cruz is a serious candidate and according to one survey, nearly half of Americans believe the Bible has too little influence in society. Apparently not enough scholars of religion have been questioning Cruz’s persistent use of Christianity and the Bible. A significant point made by Berlinerblau demands a distinction between a “candidate leaning on the Bible and leaning on the interpretative tradition spawned by the Bible” (23). I believe Cruz greatly leans on evangelical interpretation. He isn’t examining the Bible and considering different meanings and ambiguities. He grew up in an evangelical household, learning conservative theology and interpretation from a young age. This theology is more relevant to his Christian worldview than the Bible. It is important that people see this, and realize the Bible is not a text that gives answers.

Bible and politics

After reading the articles I find myself think, about presidential elections in America, especially the more recent ones (2000 onwards), does anyone (especially the youth) catch the Bible rhetoric. The US culture wars have heightened the use of biblical phrases. I feel like in America in order for presidential candidates and presidents to resonate with the people, they need to be biblically literate. (Excluding for Donald Trump who is defying this.)

Coming from Tanzania, which that is 50% Muslim 46% Christian and 4%other religions, presidential candidates never quote Bible/Quran verse in public, as they fear losing voters who do not believe in the religion they have quoted the scripture from. Government leaders don’t base their judgment on a specific religion. Unlike America where President Jimmy Carter who got a lot of heat for trying to separate the church from the state, and try to make his judgement not religiously based citing Bible verse.

Another thing I noted after reading a Washington Post[1] article about the pitfall of politicians citing Bible verses was that most of the presidential candidates quoted the Bible in there presidential announcement, for me I thought this was interesting, cause as a person from a different part of the world, we perceive America as a very liberal country, “is not really Christian country”. Even while reading the journals I found myself doubting that these presidents actually read the Bible, I found myself wondering whether they practiced the bible lines before a speech or someone wrote down there speech for them.

---

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/02/if-a-2016-candidate-is-citing-a-bible-verse-theres-a-good-chance-its-not-quite-right/

Biblical Blunders and the power of scripture in America.

There have been changes in the way American politicians use the bible through 2004-2012. First off the way the bible is seen in the public sphere differs from how the bible is understood by scholars. Those in the public sphere look for answers in the text while those who study the text are more involved in the questions the study of it raises.

There have been a few mentions of biblical scripture from the mouths of politicians that leave us giggling at how such a huge blunder could occur. Example: Rick Santorum’s Chanukah greeting card that was sent to many Jew’s included John 8:12 “I am the light of the world, He who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” Even if it was put purposely it was still quite a blunder.

While politician’s quotes of scripture may make a few laugh, is there a correlation to scripture use and getting elected or passing policies? Basically no, sometimes scripture use can even deter moderately religious or non-religious voters. And while some politicians may use scripture to better articulate their promises, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will happen. So why the increase in bold use of scripture by presidential candidates?

Jaques Berlinerblau claims it’s been this way since Justice William Rehnquist dissented with Ishmael Jafree in Wallace v, Jaffree back in 1985. The case was about prayer happening in a public school in Mobile County, Alabama. William Rehnquist reduced the separation of church and state to a “metaphor based on bad history.”  Since he claimed the reasoning was flawed since it was based on writings from Thomas Jefferson. 

Bible as a Prop

It seems obvious that our scholarly study of the Bible is different from the cultural understanding and political usage of the Bible. Politicians tend to employ biblical rhetoric in their speeches because it lends them strength in their argument. Given the cultural authority that has been granted to the Bible, the words that are reiterated have a heavier weight and purpose to them. Not only does biblical scripture lend credibility asserting a speech, it also serves a function of unity. In times of disaster or national grief, the Bible is drawn upon for its strength of unity and hope. As Evangelicals believe we live in a Christian nation, which is horribly wrong and ignorant in the religious diversity that exists, it would only make sense that we are comforted by the Bible. The single most effective usage of the Bible is to use it as a tool of unity. The Bible has great messages on how we are one humanity, supporting each other.

But through all these uses, the Bible is still very much used as a prop. Politicians might have actual religious beliefs that coincide with what they are delivering in their speech, but it is largely used in a dramatic sense. It seems to me that the Bible is more of a red herring to distract us from the root causes of our societal problems. Our focus to dissect what is being said distracts us from what is really taking place in our society.

Confirmation Bias in Trump's Campaign

I remember in elementary school when some obnoxious kid in the class would check out the biggest book they could from the library and make a show of reading it just to impress everyone. The sound of the book thudding against the desk as they opened it was more important than anything inside, except, of course, the lack of pictures. That was always a bonus. By now that kid is grown up and presumably grown out of that phase as one would hope to be the case for most adults. However, it seems that Donald Trump never picked up on the social cues and eye rolling that dubbed this behavior uncool. And he’s still using what is arguably one of the “heavier” books in the library, the Bible.

Perhaps somewhere along the line Trump heard that books impart knowledge and that knowledge is power but was always a little foggy on the details of how that was supposed to work. That is, Trump has been using his Bible to gain power, but as a prop instead of a book as evidenced by his impressive ability to hold it aloft followed by a lapse in memory regarding what it actually contains. This behavior is not so shocking on its own, but what is surprising is the amount of support he has received from conservatives who believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God. My home state of Georgia, though I am not surprised by its vote for Trump in the primaries, is overwhelmingly Christian and would presumably take issue with Trump’s biblical bluffing, but it didn’t. Even with the option of evangelical Ted Cruz and his dominionist father, Georgia chose Trump. This decision forces me to ask the question: why hasn’t the Bible failed Trump? I believe the answer lies in what he already believes.

Imagine, for contrast, Pat the Liberal running for president and brandishing a Bible in the same manner as Trump. Will Pat’s Bible be winning conservative Christian supporters? Most likely not. If anything, they would see Pat’s use of the Bible as disrespectful, a perversion of its messages. Trump is so successful even with his tactless Bible flailing because he already shares many of their beliefs, so the inclusion of a Bible in the mix is just an added perk. Classic confirmation bias. In fact, the only part of the whole ordeal which is surprising is that he hasn’t backed himself into the same corner Todd Akin wound up in. And the more the confirmation bias for Trump grows, the less likely such an end seems for him.

Obama's Rhetoric

Jeffery S. Siker begins his article by presenting how President Obama has been “perhaps the most complex individual ever elected to the position of President of the United States” (586). So, how did Barack Obama get elected? One could certainly argue that it was Obama’s speeches that led the country to vote for him. Siker mentions a book, Power in Words, that writes about Obama’s rhetorical strategies. There are countless amounts of books that have been written about President Obama’s rhetoric—a book that I have read is called Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama by Sam Leith. In this book, Leith talks about the power of persuasion, which Obama seems to have mastered this. In President Obama, the Bible, and Political Rhetoric we can notice that President Obama used Scripture for the benefit of the people—Siker states three aspects of Obama’s rhetoric: “(1) the felt religious commitment and experience of faith, (2) a faith that emphasizes the ongoing battle for economic and social justice, and (3) a faith that involves critical thinking and conscious choices, namely, a reasoned faith” (593). Obama used the Bible as a book of wisdom and not just as a formula to manipulate Christians to vote for him—which is very unlike the candidates that are running for presidency today. In the pew below, we can see that in 2012 Obama the less Christian voters than Romney and more from “other faiths”. Overall, one can argue that Obama using the Bible in speeches was not a form of exploitation, like candidates are now using the Bible in their speeches today.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

Society Versus Politics

          It has been brought to my attention by these three articles that the Presidential election is becoming increasingly religious, though coincidentally, the nation is more inclined to be "politically correct" than ever before. Where Bernie Sanders is being scrutinized by thousands for not using religious rhetoric in his campaign, thousands of people are ridiculed daily on social media platforms for assuming everyone is Christian or assuming everyone is straight, and so on. I understand the importance of Biblical usage in political rhetoric in modern cultural discourse, but how can we expect Medhurst's nine reasons people use the Bible in politics to be true and relevant if everything else tells us not to be exclusive or assume anything? 
           Perhaps this answer would be clearer to me if I was more up to date on the presidential campaign, but it seems strange that politics are still using Biblical references to further their chances of presidency...and why are they winning? In Berlinerblau, it is evident that politicians often use Scripture to explain their reasoning behind decisions or to showcase their credibility as honorable, wholesome, and faithful. With that being said, these politicians are not using verses to make these decisions nor do they believe they are influenced directly from their faith, so there seems to be no need to have religion in the presidential debate during the "politically correct" crisis. As time continues, I am excited to see how religion continues to play a role (or completely loses it's role) in politics with the growing intolerance for anything exclusive in society. 

The Most Unpredictable Relief Pitcher in the World: "The Donald"

Jacques Berlinerblau was so close to getting it all right. In recent memory, Berlinerblau's been batting 3 for 3 (his evaluation of the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections) and until recently, he had shown no sign of letting up. Hell, if you can get political theory "hits" against the likes of George W. Bush, Herman Cain, Barack Obama, Rick Perry, John Edwards and Mitt Romney, who could possibly stop you in the 2016 election!?

The answer should be pretty obvious...

In defense of Berlinerblau, there's no way he could have ever predicted that the religious right-wing would take a turn like it has. And, if you ignore "The Donald" and focus on the rest of the political field, Berlinerblau's looking like he would get yet another impressive "hit". But, good luck ignoring "The Donald". The Republican voters have chosen the most unpredictable relief pitcher in recent memory. He's not even throwing pitches we knew existed! Trump is changing the game completely. It's no wonder that political and religious theorists, including Berlinerblau, aren't able to get a hit on this guy.

So what happens to Berlinerblau's theory that "the old cite-and-run techniques of 2008 may increasingly yield, at least among Republicans, to the longer-form interventions" that look more like sermons than speeches? He was almost right. Look at the rest of the Republican hopefuls. Rubio, a serious candidate for arguably less than a month, struggled with having little to no solid religious base to characterize himself on (link).  Ben Carson was on the other side of the spectrum as the "most religious" candidate. Lastly, Ted Cruz has made his mark on the race by characterizing himself as "a Christian first, American second". Cruz has completely dismissed the "cite-and-run" technique and,with the help of his Preacher father, shaped nearly every aspect of his campaign around his faith. Although Carson has dropped out, his campaign existed significantly longer than it probably should have, I'd argue, because of his close religious characterization. Rubio, who on paper looked like the easy choice for the Republican's, tanked as he only won 1 state before dropping out. Keeping the baseball metaphor alive, all three candidates seem to be a clear "hit" for Berlinerblau and his theory.

So what about Trump? With 2 clear front-runners, we see Berlinerblau's theory personified (Cruz, maybe Kasich?) against the completely unpredictable. Interestingly enough, the same lines separate the establishment candidates (Kasich, maybe Cruz?) from the "Oh God, please, anyone but this guy" candidate. Does this mean that, keeping with Berlinerblau's theory, the Republican party is just becoming more and more religious? Or, was Berlinerblau totally off base: just another political theoriest left in the wake of Trump's remarkable campaign?

From a religious studies perspective, the implications of Donald's campaign can have lasting and telling complications. What happens if Trump does win the nomination? The Presidency? The support of Trump's transparently pseudo-religious campaign will signify a major divide in the way religion is viewed among religious scholars and the way it is viewed by the public (like there wasn't one before, HA). Does a Trump presidency show that the detail-oriented work of religious scholar's has completely lost base with the way the world actually thinks about these issues? If a majority of American's want, or at least, are ok with their religious discussions "Trumpified", what does this mean for religious scholars and the way their findings work in the world outside of higher education? What does this mean for religious discussions socially? The truly unbelievable aspect of Trump's campaign is that he has HUGE support. He's no longer being supported by only your crazy neighbor down the street who flies a confederate flag and that one fraternity guy who thinks it's cool. Trump's significant support seems to suggest that popular opinion prefers his ideologies to the more "traditional" Republican beliefs and to the findings typically expected from religion scholars.

If this is the case, will Republican's follow suit? Will religious discussions move away from the details and focus on just quick and possibly flawed religious references? Under a Trump presidency, will we all be forced to read "The Art of the Deal?