Culture Wars The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter (z-lib.org)

194 THE FIELDS OF CONFLICT

than this is not likely to fade away since there is at least one (and often two or three) gay and lesbian rights lobby pressing its agenda within virtually every major denomination in America. Still, o~odox-leaning renewal leaders and their followers in the mainline religious bodies (especially in Protestantism) view policy on homosexuality as the "watershed issue"-the issue over which they either stay within the mainline or leave.50 A tremendous amount of money, people, and resources, therefore, would likely disappear if homosexuality were sanctioned any more

than it is.	·
As the stron est ·	aditionalist ideals of gen-
der r;_oles and sexua1iry	•he mjljtai;y establishment and the chur.c ~~ are

b~s of how the conflict over homosexuality fares in thela~er social order. As the armed forces and the churches o on thisjitsue, so

may	e rest of American society.
	What mtens1fies the str~gle ove	e omosexuality issue is the

AIDS crisis in the gay community. The quest for public recognition and legitimacy has become a matter of life and death because along with recogniti~n and legitimacy comes the ability to credibly argue for and expect both public sympathy and increased public expenditure for medical research and health care. Cultural conservatives recognize this as well, many believing that "homosexuals and liberals are using the AIDS crisis to force our children to be taught their ultra-liberal views on sexuality and morality."51 A measure of the desperation that gays feel is seen in the practice of "outing"-intentional exposure of s~cret and usually prominent homosexuals (politicians, religious leaders, and the like) by other homosexuals. The rationale is that the gay rights movement needs all the support it can muster. These public figures could be helping the cause but either have chosen silence or have openly worked against the cal!Se in order to protect their careers. They deserve "outing" for their "malicious hypocrisy on matters of life and death."52

In Sum

The disputes over the nature and structure of authority, the moral obligations of parenting and marital commitment, the natural and legitimate boundaries of sexual experience, and so on, are all part of the struggle to define the family in its totality. In thjs.su:uggle, iJ..is impw;rant to point out that rogressive activists have faced a difficult time shak· g the · a e o bein nu-family an anti-children. "Its en · for abort~on and for day care, one observer remarked, "has strengthen@

FAMILY -

195

~ impressiou.., suggesting that here are people who want to prevent chtldren from being born ... and failing this, to dump children so that mothers can pursue their selfish programs of self-i:ealization."' P~ si~ aeir;iM!I vebcmently deny that. their agt>nda is anti-famib. They lll.a.i.Ptain that they desire a much more "inclusive yision o[. family Jife ... of people who love and care for one another."53 l'heir insistence on this serves.to confirm the argument made here, that each side Qf the cultural divide sim l o erates with a different conce tion of wh the

~~~~~~~~~~w.wuu;uq, Which

FAMILY AND NATION

196	THE FIELDS OF CONFLICT
instability. Fort	is reason, the government should leave the family alone.
As Phyllis Schlafly sai at t e W 1te ou		on	m

1980, "Pro-family groups don't think the Federal Government has the competence to deal with the family: it aggravates problems rather than

solves them."55
On the su'rface, one side would appear to favor	over ment assis-
ta ce whil	nd the other

_9.oes no~ut.JJJOse..-¥1ho maistaiP the latter op•ion rea!ly ar:gue tJisingenuously. Because our earlier consensus on what'the family is has un- ra~ tlw question is. not now whether to have a family po!jq&- but which policy will be adopt.M:-\\Cbieb-ldfilon of the famUy will eajoy-tAe ma&Wie faoor sf the g;retnment? In this light, one can begin to understand that c2nflict o~ the family js alSQ a conflict mrer the 12ower of the state in the service of a still larger vision of reality a ••ill la.i;ger ageµda for ~culture., .

8

Education

When, on the one hand, the president of Citizens for Excellence in Education (the activist wing of the National Association of Christian Educators) mused strategically about getting "an active Christian parents committee in operation in all [15,700 school districts in America], [so that] we can take complete control of all local school boards," and when, on the other hand, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union asked for financial support for its "longstanding effort to protect nonsectarian education from the meddling of the fundamentalist right," there is all but a formal declaration of war over the public schools.'

One might poirit to the infamous Scopes trial of 1926, which pitted the legitimacy of teaching evolutionism against creationism as conflicting theories of human origins, as the start of it all. Indeed,· that particular issue has been contested with slight variations many times since-in Tennessee, Louisiana, California, and elsewhere. But the creationevolution debate is really only one component of a much more comprehensive conflict that has taken shape over the content of public education. In 1974, for example. a member of'the boarcl of education in Kanawha County, West Virginia, the wife of a Fundamentalist minister,

took excepuon to the content of some new books under cons1derauon fOi" pubttc stbools. Her comptaliit was that the books were bOth anti-

Clinst1an and morailv Hawed. When the bOOks were finally adopted by the board's majority against the wishes of Fqndamentahst parents and local clergy, a massive protest ensued which included a boycott of the

198	THE FIELDS OF CONFLICT

school and even the firebombing of the classrooms. Other real-life il-

-rustrauons of the larger conhict over the schools abo~nd-in issues dealing with prayer, equal access for Bible-reading and prayer clubs, the moral content of textbooks, public funding for religious education, and the like.

the meaning of our identity as Americans is contested, as it is in the contemporary culture war, the conflict will inevitably reach the institutions that impart these collective understandings to children and young adults.

THE "SCHOOL QUESTION"

It is because of th~ intrinsic link between public education, community and national identity, and the future (symbolized by children) that the institutions of education have long been a political and legal battle- 'ground.2 In the mid-1800s, for example, there was also a struggle over the moral content of public education. At the time, what was commonly and perhaps understatedly referred to as simply the "School Question" reflected the major cultural divisions of the time-antipathy between Protestants and Catholics. How that struggle unfolded is a story instructive "for our own time, for it reveals the dynamics, the passions, and the political stakes involved in the present battles over education.

Lessons from the Past

As the number of Catholic immigrants in the United States continued to swell through the early decades of the nineteenth century, they bega~ to press for an educational system that would meet the needs of their young. The public and state-supported education that existed was simply

EDUCATION

199

a~t. oo s re mre e use o t

stead of the Douay Bible-an English translation of the Latin y11Jgate edition); instituted Protesfant hymns and prayersj and permitted antiCatholic nas§ages in textbooks :md ljhpcy hggkiia The so-called nonsectarian schools, Catholics argued, were in reality very much sectarian, but of a wider den'ominational cut. As Bishop Francis Kenrick of Philadelphia put it, "[The schools are] founded on a Protestant principle, and the books, even if free from direct invective against Catholics, which is not often the case, are all of a Protestant complexion." The Catholics wished to respond simply by establishin their own s stem o on.

n New Yor t ey were somewhat successful in that endeavor, but in Philadelphia Catholics were almost wholly dependent upon the common schools. In both situations, however, the situation was viewed as unfair. If public funds were to be made available for what was, in effect, Protestant education, these funds should also be made available tor Catholic education. Otherwise, the public schools should become more genuinely 'Pim alistic, allowing Catholic children to use the Catholic Bible and Protestant children to use the Protestant Bible. As Bishop Kenrick argued, the "religious predilections of the parents [should] be respected."3

s ould there ore prevail. Similar convictions were voiced in the Baptist "Record, the Episcopal Recorder, and Congregationalist and Methodist journals. Their sense of entitlement over the public schools ultimately betrayed a resentment against Catholicism that was not always gracefully disguised. As one Baptist weekly, the Watchman, sneered, "If the children of Papists are really in danger of being corrupted in the Protestant schools of enlightened, free and happy America, it may be well of their

	200		THE FIELDS OF CONFLICT
	conscientious parents and still more conscientious priests, to return them
	to the privileges o~ their ancestral homes, among the half-tamed booi:s
	of Germany."4
	,...But the expanding Catholic community was not deteqed iD voicing
	its co!"plaint. One bishop in Illinois described public schools as "serii'i-
						-
	naries of infidelity, and as such most fruitful sources of immorality."
	Even the a		al authorities in Rome became involved. In 1875 the Con-
	tJ.teir children to Catholic §rhgru11 along with a warning to the American
	Catholic bishops that they would he "recreant to their duty" if they failed
	to provide such schools. The logic behind this decree was rooted in the
	conviction that "evils of gravest kind are likely to result from the so-
	called public schools," which are "most dangerous and very much op-
	posed to Catholicity." For this reason many leaders in the Catholic hi-
	erarchy continued to press for a system of education similar to those
	existing in European countries "where," as an archbishop from Cincin-
	nati explained, "the rights of conscience in the matter of education have
	been fully recognized."5			·
		Over the long term, the efforts to secure public funds for Catholic
	education failed. The well-intended efforts to consolidate public and
	parochial school systems in a just manner failed too. Often, attempts ~t
	com	romise resulted in an absence of religio1,1s instruction rather than
	a c	oice between rotestant an			at o 1c orms. Catholics, as a conse-
	qt'ience were		rtra ed as the enemies of Bible rea3mg and true Chrls-
	uan morality		he rea 1ty,	owever, wast at		e Cat o 1cs 1 not reject
	either Bible. reading or moral instruction. Both were central to their
	theory and practice of educatio~Catholicsopposed secularism as much
	as Protestants did. The issue was always which Bible and whose religious
	instruction. Nevertheless, the Protestant conviction prevailed that the
	moral and religious foundations of public'education were being under-
					-..	._....
	mined. The ISatiggal Te3chers' Association{which soon hesame the Na-
	'Jjpnal Ed11c3tjgp As5gci3tigpl ar it3 3PP''?I CQpxf:ntjnn in 1869 articulated
A~\P'the dominant Protestant_ yiew in					twp ironical!}' posed resohuM1ns. One
J	Stated that "the apprnpriation of public funds for the supoort of sectarian
	•;nstiwtions is a yiglatjgp pf the fundamental principles of our Amep,;n
	_axstem gf c;d11rntion.'.:.._Another stated that "the Bible should not only he
	studied. venerated, and honored as a classic for all ages. people aiid
	l~yag.es , ,		hut deygtinna11y rt:aa, an& its			precepts jgculc3ted in Jill

the common schools pf the land "6 The irony, of course, was that the

EDUCATION

201

educational establishment rejected public funds for sectarian education yet that establishment itself was thoroughly sectarian, albeit of the dominant Protestant variety. For Protestants, the common school was one of the chief mechanisms for maintaining their cultural domination. By contrast, the Catholic quest for public funding for parochial schools or for an equitable arrangement in the common school system represented a formidable challenge to that domination.

The Present Struggle

n "sm o sglete.. Thus, in our own time we see that the institutions of public education continue to mediate cultural conflict, but the character of the "School ·Question" has altered to conform to the contours ofthe contemporary culture war.

The cast of players has changed completely, yet the stakes have remained the same: power over the public schools.

The significance of the public schools to the larger culture war is not small. Actors on both sides of the cultural divide have placed the battle over public education at the center of the larger conflict. An observer of the Kanawha County incident (mentioned earlier) stated, "This country is experiencing a religious crusade as fierce as any out of the Middle Ages.... Our children are being sacrificed because of the fa- natical zeal of our fundamentalist brothers who claim to be hearing the voice of God.... In this religious war, spiced with overtones of race and class, the books are an accessible target."8 From the opposite point of view, a spokesman for the National Association of Christian Educators claimed that

there is a great war waged in America~but not on the battlefield of conventional weapons. This battle is for the heart and mind and the soul of every man, woman, and especially child in America.... The combatants are "secular humanism" and "Christianity." Atheism, in the cloak of an acceptable "humanitarian" religious philosophy, has been subtly introduced into the traditional Christian American Culture through the public school system. The battle is for the minds of our youth.9

202	THE FIELDS OF CONFLICT

4

Clearly, both caricature the nature of the conflict, yet they do correctly perceive the lines of contention; namely that the alliance of moral traditionalists has become the challenger to a new he emon , maintamea

y

Conservative Complaints

	Orthodox Catholics have long been the most perceptive and artic-
	ufate on t\lis issue. As early as the 1950s, Catholic educators decried the
	-.'problem of secular humanis			" · chools. Such a perception, forex-
	amp ,	central to the founding of Citizens for Educational Freedom,
	a parents' rights educational organization founded by Catholics in St.
	Louis in 1959. According to one of its founders, a shift occurred: "For
	a century we opposed the public schools because they were Protestant
	institutions but now we oppose them because they are secular humanist.
	They reject any absolutes in morality."11 This view has been amplified
	b) the conservative Catholic scholar James Hitchcock, who in his book
	What Is Secular Humanism? argued: "Far from being neutral, the Amer-
	ican government is now in the position of favoring unbelief over belief
	and irreligion over religion." Other conservative Catholic organizations,
	such as the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights and such
	conservative Catholic publications as The Wanderer and Fidelity have fol-
	·lowed suit, openly protesting the way in which "secularists destroy our
	Judeo-Christian heritage" through sex education programs, "values clar-
	ification," and the like. 12 "Our public schools," wrote the president of
	the Catholic League, "have become 'mission schools of Secularism.' "13
	QJ:thndox Jews have not been silent on this issue either. Agudath
	Israel, representing Orthodox Jewish interests in public policy, for ex-
	ample, explicitly states its opposition to sex education programs, the
	teaching of evolution, and any other efforts by government "to impose
	religiously objectionable curricula or other education requirements" par-
	ticularly upon religi<>us schools. 14
	Thou	h Evan elical and Fundamentalist Pr			estants have offered
	~ subtle anal ses of the roblem,			enerall the voices that are heard· rom
~ these quarters tend to be the most desperate. Presi ential hopefu~
\	\ ~obertson, for instance, spoke for many of his constituents when he
I	, .._claimed thatThe American		overnment was "attem tin to do something
	that few states other·than the Nazis and the Soviets have attem te
	o, namely, to take he		ildren away rom the		arents and to educa
	·t em m a philosophy that is amoral, anti-Christian and humanistic an

EDUCATION

203

;to;.::sh:o~w~t:h~e=m.;,::;a;c=o~ll~e~ct~i~vi~s~ti~c..i;.:~~~~;:,a;;~~..:;;:l~ti~m~a'7.:'el:-7l~e~a~d~t_,,~.d arx1sm, socialism and a &;Ql.PW"Pi:i!ir;; l.):pc gf jdeology."15 Never one to

mince words, Jjmmy Swaggart concluded similarly that "th_e greatest enem of our children toda i ·s Unite S · ublic school _!};'Stem. It is e uc~£12P ll{irbg1Jt Qg,Q." "If the educational system in America in our public schools and our universities," he elsewhere stated, "went totally, absolutely bankrupt tomorrow, it would be the finest thing that

ever happened to this country."16

Importantly, these views represent more ·than the early morning crankiness of a few leaders in the orthodox alliance; in fact they~ ~road-based aepegl In a national survey conducted in late 1987, ~ two-thirds 69 percent of the Evan elical res ndents familiar with the ~rm agreed t at "public schools [were] teaching the values of secu ar humanism" rnmpared tg gply one-quarter (27 percent) of those identified as secularists (those without religious preference). An even greater number of Evangelicals (82 percent compared to only 21 percent of the secularists) described its "impact on this country" (presumably in large par't through the public schools) as "bad." Among the Evangelical clergy, the assessment was even more uniform. Ninety-one percent agreed that public schools were teaching the values of secular humanism and 94 percent viewed its impact as bad. Likewise the majority of conservative Catholics were disguieted by the puplic schools as well. !he majority ;f both liberal and traditional Catholic priests (80 percent), for example,

agree	t at t e va ues o secu ar umam	wer	u ht in t e
sc ools.	ome 87 percent of the traditionally oriented		priests argued

that its impact was bad, compared to 67 percent of the more liberally oriented priests.11

How do the culturally conservative identif the sources lar humanism? Mani; x t e ame on the various Supreme Court rulings prohibiting prayer or a moment of silence ip public schools. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, for one, called the 1963 ruling against prayer in the public schools "the darkest hour in the history of the nation." 18 Sympathetic with this perspective was a book published by Concerned Women for America, which· provided "irrefutable evidence of what has happened to America since school prayer was removed in 1962." According to their research, "removing prayer and the acknowledgment of God from our classrooms has been the primary cause of the devastatingly serious decline in the lives of students, their families, the schools, and our nation." For instance, "premarital sexual activity has increased over 200%; pregnancies to unwed motqers are up almost