Eyring 1

Annotated Bibliography

Separation of Church and State: Interactions Between Religion and Politics

Olivia Eyring Professor Malcolm Campbell English 1103 October 17th, 2012

Eyring 2

Annotated Bibliography "Does Law Protect Prayer Or Exclude Non-Christians?" Tell Me More. National Public Radio. 17 August, 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. This interview from NPR focuses on a Missouri amendment that was recently passed. The amendment was intended to clarify state policies on freedom of religious expression in public, specifically within government meetings and schools. However, critics of the amendment worry that its vague wording gives far too much leeway. Under this amendment, students may opt out of classes and assignments that go against their personal religious views. For example, students who are of a faith that does not believe in evolution and related subjects could choose to not take science courses such as biology that offend their faith. Even so, biology is a required course for graduation; this amendment could create various issues in keeping religion out of school systems. Supporters argue that the amendment protects rights to individual prayer and worship, but these rights are already protected under the United States Constitution. Another issue addressed is that, when people went to cast their vote, the description of the amendment was excessively vague and did not accurately represent its contents. NPR is a very reliable source, and this interview displayed both sides of the controversy. This provides an excellent example of how government policies are slowly becoming more lenient on the separation of church and state, and it highlights how the phrasing, or lack thereof, of what people are voting on is used to sway their decisions. I will be using this interview as a source in my Extended Inquiry Project and looking for similar laws and bills that have been passed or thrown out.

Eyring 3

Hawkins, John. The Lefts War on Christianity. Townhall.com. Salem Communications. March 09, 2012. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. This article is written from a very conservative Christian point of view. It attempts to make points about the conflicts between liberalism in politics and fundamentalist Christianity. It argues that, if you are a liberal, you disagree with many points of Christianity (such as Christianitys opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and sexual education) and cannot be a true Christian, and that if you are a Christian liberal you either destroy your values or are essentially a walking case of cognitive dissonance. It goes on to pick on specific liberals who have said things that are not completely pro-Christianity, claiming that liberals believe Christians should be mocked, impugned, and driven from the public square at every opportunity, except when theres an election coming up. It concludes with stating that the First Amendment, which bans the unfair favoring or prohibition of any religions in particular, actually should be interpreted to allow freedom of expression of religion rather than doing things such as keeping religion out of schools. This source seems to be strongly biased towards Christianity as a foundation of the United States. Instead of saying that Christianity opposes a more comprehensive sexual education program in public schools (the current supported format is abstinence is the only solution), it says that they oppose teaching little kids about fisting. This is a good example of the narrow-mindedness of the article; sexual education policies do not aim to teach anything taboo, but to give answers to common questions and quell curiosity. The points made about politics (many of which focused on Obama saying non-Christian things while remaining a supposed Christian) all focused on wanting policies to follow Christianitys moral order. I may use this source, or at least townhall.com, as a source of

Eyring 4

a strongly biased or dissenting opinion, but I dont consider it completely reliable. It seems that the article focuses on twisting words and giving a very narrow approach to the role of separation of church and state. Lunenburg, Fred C. State Aid To Private Schools: A Question Of Separation Of Church And State. FOCUS On Colleges, Universities & Schools 6.1 (2011): 1-5. Education Research Complete. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. This article aims to focus on the history of the separation of church and state in government policy in the United States with respect to government funding going to private and parochial schools. It begins by detailing the history of Supreme Court rulings on how government should deal with the distribution of funds to private schools. A common ruling was that if the funds were going towards child benefits it was not a violation of the First Amendment to fund private institutions. This led to many demands from private schools for state support, which began a rework of funding policies. However, recently the government has allowed more and more tax funds to go to private schools. No longer is the First Amendment used to prevent religious and private institutions from receiving extra funding. Now it is used as a neutral policy, allowing state funds to be distributed equally among all institutions without favoring any religious sects in particular. The validity of this source is unquestionable; it is constantly citing Supreme Court cases and explaining their influence on how the First Amendment invokes the separation of church and state with regards to private school funding. You can easily follow the decisions, and it is straightforward and to the point. This source will be very valuable to me in my Extended Inquiry Project; I can use its contents as a chronological example of how policies involving the separation of church and state have been changing

Eyring 5

as time passes. It is easy to use this source because of how straightforward and reliable the information given is. Religion in the Public Schools. Faith and Freedom: Religion in the Public Schools. AntiDefamation League. n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. This source focuses on the effects of religion being practiced within public schools. It states that any sort of religious indoctrination that a family wants should be done at home and in church; because children in school are so impressionable, religious tones in lessons or group prayers could influence their beliefs, possibly against the will of their parents. Additionally, if a student is of a different religion than that which is being put forth by the school, the child in question could be ridiculed and harassed by other students and teachers. The article goes on to explain that the idea of Godless classrooms is a myth; while organized prayer and worship (as well as indoctrination) in school is illegal under the separation of church and state, individual students are legally allowed to express their religion. Several past cases involving the discrimination against Jewish students by Christian students and teachers in schools that allowed religious indoctrinations are cited to strengthen the point that, while religious freedom is a desireable goal, organized religion does not belong in schools. Overall, this source seems very reliable; it attempts to give varying points of view by explaining the reasoning of those who support religious expression as a part of education while still supporting the separation of church and state. The Anti-Defamation League is an organization with a long and trustworthy history, and I should definitely be able to use this article as a source and reference for my project. In addition, a representative from the Anti-Defamation League was part of an interview on National Public Radio that I plan on using as another source. This gives this article more

Eyring 6

support as a trustworthy source. This site may have other articles relevant to my subject of choice, so I will be sure to browse it for more references.