The Offensiveness of Evangelism
June 8, 2012
Elmer Thiessen
The topic of evangelism made national headlines in Canada recently. It all started with a twelfth grade student in Nova Scotia wearing a T-shirt boldly emblazoned with the words, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” William Swinimer continued to wear his yellow T-shirt even after the vice-principal at his school asked him not to do so, after some students had complained that they found the message offensive. Swinimer’s refusal to obey led to a series of in-school suspensions, and finally a five-day at-home suspension. The normally shy 19-year-old refused to comply even though it might have meant permanent suspension and the loss of his chance of graduating. “I believe this is worth standing up for,” he said, “it’s not just standing up for religious rights, it’s standing up for my rights as a Canadian citizen; for freedom of speech, freedom of religion.”
The regional school board initially supported the actions of the school administration, with Superintendent Nancy Pynch-Worthylake maintaining that repeated defiance of school authorities was justified grounds for suspending Swinimer. The school board issued a statement clarifying that “students may choose to wear clothing that embraces their beliefs.” However, “it is expected that students will not wear clothing with messages that may offend others’ beliefs, race, religion, culture or lifestyle.”
The nationwide debate ignited by this incident was most revealing. Superintendent Pynch-Worthylake at first described the issue as one of conflicting rights: “We absolutely support students’ rights to express their beliefs, but we absolutely support students’ rights to not have their own beliefs unreasonably criticized.” The vice-principal of the school even went so far as to suggest that the message on the T-shirt spewed “hate talk.” The students at the school were divided on this question.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is at least an implicit criticism of others’ beliefs in the message of William Swinimer’s T-shirt. Indeed, I believe that any evaluative statement entails an implicit judgment on contrary statements. But making judgments or criticisms of the beliefs of other people is surely not inherently wrong. Nor should criticisms be seen as inherently disrespectful. I would even suggest that making a criticism of someone’s belief is a way to honor that person. I am taking you and your beliefs seriously enough to critique them.
Then there is the claim of the school board asserting that students have the right not to have their own beliefs “unreasonably criticized.” What is so unreasonable about the implicit criticism of other beliefs by making a statement like, “Life is wasted without Jesus”? I suspect that what lies behind this judgment is a hidden assumption that all religious statements are “unreasonable,” and hence all implicit criticisms of other beliefs are similarly unreasonable. This is in itself a rather “unreasonable” position to hold, resting on a host of assumptions that need to be and can be critiqued.
Here the late John Rawls has something to teach us with his notion of “burdens of judgment,” introduced to help us to cope with the deep differences of belief within societies. Rawls maintained that we need to give each other the benefit of the doubt with regard to the reasonableness of our differing beliefs. We need a spirit of generosity, allowing that reasonable persons may affirm differing reasonable doctrines. Both those who believe that life is wasted without Jesus, and those who don’t, need to see each other as reasonable persons who can give reasons for their implicit and explicit criticisms of beliefs contrary to their own.
Journalist Emma Teitel brings to the fore another reason for considering Swinimer’s T-shirt message offensive. Religious beliefs are “far too precious to flaunt” and should be kept entirely private, according to Teitel. What is rather strange here is that we don’t demand this of other similar sorts of value declarations. We seem to have no problem with the flaunting of commercial messages in the form of advertising. Why single out religion as something that needs to be kept private? In truth, I suspect Teitel simply disagrees with religious beliefs and is annoyed by their expression.
But there is more to Teitel’s tirade against the T-shirt episode. “There is a great difference between cherishing a belief and wielding it like a weapon,” Teitel argues. Now this is really quite serious! At a minimum, the old skeptical sawhorse of coercion is now being equated with evangelism. To talk about a message on a T-shirt as a kind of weaponry borders on the absurd, of course, unless one is drawing on the insights of French postmodernist Michel Foucault who interprets all truth claims as “fruits of a poisoned tree of power relations.” But if so, then this also applies to Teitel and her company of critics. The weapon analogy is ultimately self-refuting.
Given the feverish and absurd criticisms of William Swinimer, it is not surprising that the school eventually backed away from their controversial decision.
Still, the reader might be wondering whether this comparatively minor, local incident merits the attention that I have given it. It does, because it is not an isolated incident. The arguments used against William Swinimer are representative of the kinds of arguments frequently raised against all forms of Christian evangelism or proselytizing. They deserve careful dissection and cross-examination. We are indebted to Mr. Swinimer for his bold demonstration and defense of ethical evangelism.
Elmer Thiessen is the author of The Ethics of Evangelism: A Philosophical Defense of Proselytizing and Persuasion, recently published by Paternoster and IVP Academic.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
6.8.2012 | 4:46am
vytas says:
I don't think free speech should be prohibited. You should be able to wear a t-shirt saying Life isWwasted without Jesus, or Life is Wasted without Hitler, does not matter. However, the message is clearly offencive and intended to offend, as it implies, no, clearly states that the lives of people of other religions or no religions are waste.
6.8.2012 | 5:25am
Michael PS says:
This is reminiscent of the debate we had in Europe a few years back over religious symbols in public schools – Try Goggling « l’affaire du voile » or « l’affaire du foulard » [[The headscarf business]
It needs to be borne in mind that on the one hand, the secularism of state schools is not restricted, in the case of pupils, to respect for their freedom of conscience: it essentially consists in excluding religion from state schools and it therefore imposes a duty of restraint on pupils in their behaviour, since they find themselves in a place pertaining to the public sphere of the state and its administration. On the other hand, pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school.
It needs to be borne in mind that on the one hand, the secularism of state schools is not restricted, in the case of pupils, to respect for their freedom of conscience: it essentially consists in excluding religion from state schools and it therefore imposes a duty of restraint on pupils in their behaviour, since they find themselves in a place pertaining to the public sphere of the state and its administration. On the other hand, pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school.
6.8.2012 | 5:48am
Ian says:
Good for William Swinimer and thank you for bringing this to our attention.
You write: "I suspect that what lies behind this judgment is a hidden assumption that all religious statements are “unreasonable,” and hence all implicit criticisms of other beliefs are similarly unreasonable."
You then rightly point out that this is itself an unreasonable position. Indeed it is. For if all religious statements are unreasonable (because they involve belief in a non-existent deity) then it cannot be unreasonable to criticise them. By definition statements in support of a deity are nonsensical. That being so, however sincerely they are held, they are open to criticism, perhaps even ridicule, especially in an academic institution.
Where will it all end? A sign for Holy Trinity Church implicitly criticizes, Unitarians, The statue of Christ the Redeemer mocks the Mormons.
I suspect the real reason for the school authorities' action is a fear of offending people who have become overly sensitive about any criticism of their religious or anti-religious views. Would there have been a similar uproar if the T-shirt had read:
"Life is wasted without coffee" or without exercise or indeed "Life is wasted without education"?
For the record, I prefer Pepsi to Coke and consider the motto "Coke is it" to be untrue and offensive to Pepsiphiles. Who will join in supporting a ban on the wearing of such T-shirts?
You write: "I suspect that what lies behind this judgment is a hidden assumption that all religious statements are “unreasonable,” and hence all implicit criticisms of other beliefs are similarly unreasonable."
You then rightly point out that this is itself an unreasonable position. Indeed it is. For if all religious statements are unreasonable (because they involve belief in a non-existent deity) then it cannot be unreasonable to criticise them. By definition statements in support of a deity are nonsensical. That being so, however sincerely they are held, they are open to criticism, perhaps even ridicule, especially in an academic institution.
Where will it all end? A sign for Holy Trinity Church implicitly criticizes, Unitarians, The statue of Christ the Redeemer mocks the Mormons.
I suspect the real reason for the school authorities' action is a fear of offending people who have become overly sensitive about any criticism of their religious or anti-religious views. Would there have been a similar uproar if the T-shirt had read:
"Life is wasted without coffee" or without exercise or indeed "Life is wasted without education"?
For the record, I prefer Pepsi to Coke and consider the motto "Coke is it" to be untrue and offensive to Pepsiphiles. Who will join in supporting a ban on the wearing of such T-shirts?
6.8.2012 | 6:31am
Jay says:
I wonder what would have happened if the student had worn a tshirt that said "Life without Nintendo is wasted".
I'm guessing nothing. So is the problem that his tshirt was sincere? Supposing the kid with the nintendo shirt was also sincere, and he was known as a video game-obsessed nerd, and so people guessed that it was probably sincere?
I'm guessing nothing. So is the problem that his tshirt was sincere? Supposing the kid with the nintendo shirt was also sincere, and he was known as a video game-obsessed nerd, and so people guessed that it was probably sincere?
6.8.2012 | 9:43am
jdc says:
Interesting choice to use Rawls in defense of religious value statements in the public square. Although the views of the school board are certainly insidious, Rawls' are even more so because he drains them of importance. At least the school board respects religious beliefs enough to view them as a threat to it's secularist worldview, and with good reason. Rawls drains faith systems of their power so much so that they become almost irrelavent in the course of the state. At least the school board gives Christian Evangelicalism its due as a force to be rekoned with. This is why the Rawlsian view is much more dangerous and shouldn't be portrayed as superior to those of the secularist school board.
6.8.2012 | 10:20am
Randy says:
vytas,
If I wore a t-shirt that said "Married to the most beautiful woman in the World," should I be in trouble for calling other men's wives ugly? I don't think so. It's called an opinion. We used to be allowed to have them.
If I wore a t-shirt that said "Married to the most beautiful woman in the World," should I be in trouble for calling other men's wives ugly? I don't think so. It's called an opinion. We used to be allowed to have them.
6.8.2012 | 10:39am
Dean from Ohio says:
@Michael PS - "...pupils’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, in no way gives them the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs in educational institutions, for that involves external acts which improperly introduce religion into the public domain of the school."
That may be true in Canada (I don't know), but students in the U.S. have freedom of speech that applies in school as well as out of it. It has been established by the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here are a number of case citations from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, see http://aclj.org/education/religious-clothing-at-school):
"The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that public school students retain their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to wear Christian t-shirts and other religious paraphernalia. See, e.g., Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
"The seminal case regarding students’ speech rights is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In Tinker, students wore black armbands on their sleeves to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam war. As a result, the students were sent home and suspended from school, and were not allowed to return to school so long as they wore the armbands. Ruling in the students favor, the Supreme Court in Tinker held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." 393 U.S. at 506."
As for the headscarf issue, that is categorically different for two reasons. The first is that Islam is not a religion as we think of in the West, but rather is a comprehensive religious, political and ethical system that brooks no rivals. Acceptance of Islam is acceptance of domination and discrimination in every sphere of life. Second, wearing the headscarf is a known wedge tactic that is used to intimidate societies where the Muslim population is more than 5 - 10%. By the time a Muslim population reaches 25% to 35%, we see its demands for Sharia in full bloom, applied not just to the willing but to the unwilling, backed up by quick resort to riot and civil unrest if a society resists. Christian evangelism little resembles that.
It's ironic that in most cases, Europe strains out the gnat of Christian evangelism and swallows the camel of Islamic domination. As such, it is a poor example for religious freedom in either Canada or the U.S., except to mark a dangerous hidden shoal that has sunk many a ship of state over the centuries.
That may be true in Canada (I don't know), but students in the U.S. have freedom of speech that applies in school as well as out of it. It has been established by the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here are a number of case citations from the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ, see http://aclj.org/education/religious-clothing-at-school):
"The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that public school students retain their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to wear Christian t-shirts and other religious paraphernalia. See, e.g., Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
"The seminal case regarding students’ speech rights is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In Tinker, students wore black armbands on their sleeves to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam war. As a result, the students were sent home and suspended from school, and were not allowed to return to school so long as they wore the armbands. Ruling in the students favor, the Supreme Court in Tinker held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." 393 U.S. at 506."
As for the headscarf issue, that is categorically different for two reasons. The first is that Islam is not a religion as we think of in the West, but rather is a comprehensive religious, political and ethical system that brooks no rivals. Acceptance of Islam is acceptance of domination and discrimination in every sphere of life. Second, wearing the headscarf is a known wedge tactic that is used to intimidate societies where the Muslim population is more than 5 - 10%. By the time a Muslim population reaches 25% to 35%, we see its demands for Sharia in full bloom, applied not just to the willing but to the unwilling, backed up by quick resort to riot and civil unrest if a society resists. Christian evangelism little resembles that.
It's ironic that in most cases, Europe strains out the gnat of Christian evangelism and swallows the camel of Islamic domination. As such, it is a poor example for religious freedom in either Canada or the U.S., except to mark a dangerous hidden shoal that has sunk many a ship of state over the centuries.
6.8.2012 | 12:16pm
Canuckistani says:
One of the interesting things about this case - something that really deserved mention in the above article - was that Swinimer was publicly defended by various non-Christian groups, including at least one explicitly non-religious one.
6.8.2012 | 12:58pm
Michael PS says:
Ian writes "Where will it all end? A sign for Holy Trinity Church implicitly criticizes, Unitarians, The statue of Christ the Redeemer mocks the Mormons."
This fails to distinguish the domain of civil society, in which the manifestation of conflicting religious views is protected ["Free Exercise"] and the public sphere of the state, public administration and public service, from which it is excluded ["No Establishment" This does not restrict the religious beliefs of individuals; it
excludes their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities.
This fails to distinguish the domain of civil society, in which the manifestation of conflicting religious views is protected ["Free Exercise"] and the public sphere of the state, public administration and public service, from which it is excluded ["No Establishment" This does not restrict the religious beliefs of individuals; it
excludes their intervention in, or impact on, the relations between private individuals and public authorities.
6.8.2012 | 1:42pm
DBP says:
Michael PS, I am not an attorney or legal scholar in this or any other country, therefore I would be obliged for some unpacking of the distinction between "the domain of civil society, in which the manifestation of conflicting religious views is protected...and the public sphere of the state, public administration and public service, from which it is excluded."
Would/should/could the wearing of such a t-shirt by a private citizen be rightly restricted in a state university classroom? A government building? A municipal park?
Would/should/could the wearing of such a t-shirt by a private citizen be rightly restricted in a state university classroom? A government building? A municipal park?
6.8.2012 | 2:04pm
Canuckistani says:
Michael PS,
The sign is public, is it not? The statue is public, is it not?
The t-shirt was public, was it not?
The sign is public, is it not? The statue is public, is it not?
The t-shirt was public, was it not?
6.8.2012 | 3:40pm
Mike petrik says:
Michael PS,
Your reference to the First Amendment's religion clauses notwithstanding, the only relevance the distinction you propose has to American constitutional law is that it has long been rejected. Although the Supreme Court has botched these clauses by somehow adopting a cramped understanding of the literally sweeping exercise clause and an expansive understanding of the literally narrow establishment clause, it has never remotely accepted the notion that student-initiated expressions of religious beliefs in the context of a public school constitute an estabilshment of religion.
Your reference to the First Amendment's religion clauses notwithstanding, the only relevance the distinction you propose has to American constitutional law is that it has long been rejected. Although the Supreme Court has botched these clauses by somehow adopting a cramped understanding of the literally sweeping exercise clause and an expansive understanding of the literally narrow establishment clause, it has never remotely accepted the notion that student-initiated expressions of religious beliefs in the context of a public school constitute an estabilshment of religion.
6.8.2012 | 3:43pm
Another Pilgrim says:
If one does not accept the validity of the statement ' Life is wasted without Jesus' then how canit be considered offensive? If the statement were 'Life is wasted without Orange Soda' and I don't believe that orange soda in any way enhances my life then why should I feel offended. I would just find the statement to be ridicules.
6.8.2012 | 3:57pm
Mike Melendez says:
I remember the head scarf issue in France and was deeply puzzled by it. If the scarf did not violate an existing dress code, I cannot understand the problem with wearing it (contra Dean). And even if it did, I think the family might have a case of religious discrimination in the U.S. Now, the Sikh dagger to go with the turban might be a different problem, but not for religious reasons.
Then again, I am amazed at Michael PS leap from "No Establishment" to "manifestation of conflicting religious views ... is excluded". The former has never meant "no religion" but rather "all religions". I believe that it is the exclusion that is being targeted by "No Establishment", i.e. if you exclude, you necessarily establish something else, there being no such thing as a vacuum of ideas.
Then again, I am amazed at Michael PS leap from "No Establishment" to "manifestation of conflicting religious views ... is excluded". The former has never meant "no religion" but rather "all religions". I believe that it is the exclusion that is being targeted by "No Establishment", i.e. if you exclude, you necessarily establish something else, there being no such thing as a vacuum of ideas.
6.8.2012 | 4:09pm
George says:
Canuckistani,
All those things are public, but not part of the State's sphere of influence. This is the distinction between the State and Civil Society.
All those things are public, but not part of the State's sphere of influence. This is the distinction between the State and Civil Society.
6.8.2012 | 4:11pm
Joe says:
Seems to raise a bunch of questions, at least in my mind. Parents are required by the state to send their kids to school, and may be prosecuted for not doing so. If the kid shows up wearing something the school does not like, he is suspended or even kicked out of the school. Can the paents then home school the kid in the way of their choosing? Or, can the kid be forced to return to a school and physically restrained from wearing "undesirable" things? Or jailed if he refuses to comply? Or are the parents legally rssponsible for what the kid wears?
6.8.2012 | 4:20pm
CondoRider says:
Any school has full right to regulate dress (so long as they do so evenly). Schools are not the same free society as the world outside their walls (else kids could not be required to attend).
That they allow tee shirts at all (and shorts, jeans, sandals, sweats) rather than dressier shirts is a pretty major concession to kids. That they allow tees with printing is an even larger concession. So, I think that a shirt with a message is certainly theirs to restrict...... certainly it is not unreasonable to direct that "it is expected that students will not wear clothing with messages that may offend others’ beliefs, race, religion, culture or lifestyle.”
I think this situation is a good one to engender learning and discussion. LET other kids object to the Nintendo shirt, even ban it. Work and work to find common ground and common understanding of the practial application of the rules. It all contributes to lessons in living together in a society, and getting people past selfishness and into a little more respect for others.
What the student at issue should have done, when first reprimanded, was switch to a shirt that says, "I love Jesus." This is only a statement of the wearer's religion and nothing more. If repremanded again, then the school's problem is with any message that touches on religion, not just the one that criticized everyone elses' faith.
That they allow tee shirts at all (and shorts, jeans, sandals, sweats) rather than dressier shirts is a pretty major concession to kids. That they allow tees with printing is an even larger concession. So, I think that a shirt with a message is certainly theirs to restrict...... certainly it is not unreasonable to direct that "it is expected that students will not wear clothing with messages that may offend others’ beliefs, race, religion, culture or lifestyle.”
I think this situation is a good one to engender learning and discussion. LET other kids object to the Nintendo shirt, even ban it. Work and work to find common ground and common understanding of the practial application of the rules. It all contributes to lessons in living together in a society, and getting people past selfishness and into a little more respect for others.
What the student at issue should have done, when first reprimanded, was switch to a shirt that says, "I love Jesus." This is only a statement of the wearer's religion and nothing more. If repremanded again, then the school's problem is with any message that touches on religion, not just the one that criticized everyone elses' faith.
6.8.2012 | 4:25pm
Ray Ingles says:
Dean - Even atheists can agree that religious messages on student t-shirts are protected: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/05/09/more-free-speech-problems-in-canada/ (And there's also this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/05/25/school-admits-error-on-student-speech-case/ )
"As for the headscarf issue", I'd appreciate some documentation on your claims.
"As for the headscarf issue", I'd appreciate some documentation on your claims.
6.8.2012 | 4:28pm
David Nickol says:
While I wholeheartedly support a student's right to wear a t-shirt saying, “Life is wasted without Jesus,” I wonder how many Christians would support a student (perhaps an atheist or a Jew) wearing a t-shirt saying "Life is wasted *with* Jesus." If non-Christians are supposed to tolerate Christian proclamations that they (the non-Christians) are wasting their lives, then Christians must be willing to tolerate proclamations of non-Christians that imply a life believing in Jesus is wasted.
6.8.2012 | 6:23pm
philfourthirteen says:
@David.
Speaking as a Christian, I wouldn't mind someone wearing a tee-shirt with that message. In fact, it might lead to a dialog with that student. At leastthey're serious about what they believe (or disbelieve). Christ wanted us cold or hot, but not lukewarm.
Speaking as a Christian, I wouldn't mind someone wearing a tee-shirt with that message. In fact, it might lead to a dialog with that student. At leastthey're serious about what they believe (or disbelieve). Christ wanted us cold or hot, but not lukewarm.
6.8.2012 | 6:58pm
Mark says:
When my faith waivers, it always helps me to remember how people get offended at the mere mention of Jesus. It is more than a little stange. His name has power, real power.
6.8.2012 | 9:55pm
Dean from Ohio says:
Ray,
I don't have "documentation" per se that the demands of Islamists increase in correlated fashion with the percentage of the society they inhabit, but here is one popular expression of Islamist control tactics vs. percentage of the population. To me, coupled with my not inconsiderable study and exposure to Muslim cultures, it rings true. You will have to evaluate it for yourself.
http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/
On the headscarf issue, the greatest recent action on this front has been in Turkey. I include three links below as samples of the views, and different levels of detail and sophistication of arguments for and against this issue. Before the links, though, I will say that the military advice of knowing your enemy and knowing yourself must be given, and taken, in order for a Westerner to understand this issue.
Specifically, a Westerner must be aware of his or her own tendency to interpret Islam over-generously through the lens of western religious pluralism and, frankly, historical ignorance. This lens is one that presents religious expression as largely a private preference that makes a moral appeal to others. Westerners think that if they only grant the demands of Muslims for self-expression and diversity, then they will finally be happy, and equilibrium will result. Unfortunately, that is not what Islam is, or what Islam does. It will continue to press and press until it is in the dominating position, and then it will be too late.
So, a Westerner who realizes that he longs to see, and will go to great lengths to facilitate, an equilibrium between pluralism and Islam that is "just around the corner" knows himself. Likewise, a Westerner who knows that there will never be an equilibrium in the atmosphere of Islamic demands except when the Islamists are dominant over every feature of society knows his enemy. I use that word enemy advisedly, because any Islamist who desires that the U.S. Constitution be supplanted by Sharia is an enemy that must be defended against by every American who has ever taken an oath for military or government service. I am not saying that every Muslim is an enemy; of course not. But Islamism is toxic to liberty as we understand it in the West, and Islamists are the enemies of the freedom laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
In Turkey, knowing who is pressing for headscarves is also very instructive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the sometime Prime Minister, then President, famously said, "Democracy is like a bus. When you reach your stop, you get off."
Anyway, without further ado, here are three links that help frame the issue. Knock yourself out:
http://www.michaelrubin.org/8470/turkey-on-the-brink - fairly neutral view of the headscarf issue in Turkey
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,2144,2221808,00.html - shows the Islamic hardliners' investment in keeping women in headscarves against their will, among the large Turkish minority in Germany
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/30-6/BOROVALI.30-6.pdf - scholarly description of the "slippery slope" aspect of argument to keep the ban on headscarves
Dean
I don't have "documentation" per se that the demands of Islamists increase in correlated fashion with the percentage of the society they inhabit, but here is one popular expression of Islamist control tactics vs. percentage of the population. To me, coupled with my not inconsiderable study and exposure to Muslim cultures, it rings true. You will have to evaluate it for yourself.
http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/
On the headscarf issue, the greatest recent action on this front has been in Turkey. I include three links below as samples of the views, and different levels of detail and sophistication of arguments for and against this issue. Before the links, though, I will say that the military advice of knowing your enemy and knowing yourself must be given, and taken, in order for a Westerner to understand this issue.
Specifically, a Westerner must be aware of his or her own tendency to interpret Islam over-generously through the lens of western religious pluralism and, frankly, historical ignorance. This lens is one that presents religious expression as largely a private preference that makes a moral appeal to others. Westerners think that if they only grant the demands of Muslims for self-expression and diversity, then they will finally be happy, and equilibrium will result. Unfortunately, that is not what Islam is, or what Islam does. It will continue to press and press until it is in the dominating position, and then it will be too late.
So, a Westerner who realizes that he longs to see, and will go to great lengths to facilitate, an equilibrium between pluralism and Islam that is "just around the corner" knows himself. Likewise, a Westerner who knows that there will never be an equilibrium in the atmosphere of Islamic demands except when the Islamists are dominant over every feature of society knows his enemy. I use that word enemy advisedly, because any Islamist who desires that the U.S. Constitution be supplanted by Sharia is an enemy that must be defended against by every American who has ever taken an oath for military or government service. I am not saying that every Muslim is an enemy; of course not. But Islamism is toxic to liberty as we understand it in the West, and Islamists are the enemies of the freedom laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
In Turkey, knowing who is pressing for headscarves is also very instructive. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the sometime Prime Minister, then President, famously said, "Democracy is like a bus. When you reach your stop, you get off."
Anyway, without further ado, here are three links that help frame the issue. Knock yourself out:
http://www.michaelrubin.org/8470/turkey-on-the-brink - fairly neutral view of the headscarf issue in Turkey
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,2144,2221808,00.html - shows the Islamic hardliners' investment in keeping women in headscarves against their will, among the large Turkish minority in Germany
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/30-6/BOROVALI.30-6.pdf - scholarly description of the "slippery slope" aspect of argument to keep the ban on headscarves
Dean
6.9.2012 | 7:01am
Michael PS says:
Canukistani wrote
“The sign is public, is it not? The statue is public, is it not? The t-shirt was public, was it not?”
“Public,” as opposed to private or hidden, yes. But “Public” is used in two senses: one, as you use it and the other to refer to the activities of the state and its administration, including the provision of public services. In this latter sense, the sign and the statue are not “public,” unless erected by public authority: the t-shirt becomes public, if worn in a public school, a law-court, by someone in the discharge or by a public functionary.
The private domain, the framework of society, is the domain not only of individuals but of groups and associations (and thus of churches and religious communities). This is why religious freedom is at once individual (freedom of conscience) and collective (freedom of religious communities). It implies that the latter organize themselves and operate freely.
“The sign is public, is it not? The statue is public, is it not? The t-shirt was public, was it not?”
“Public,” as opposed to private or hidden, yes. But “Public” is used in two senses: one, as you use it and the other to refer to the activities of the state and its administration, including the provision of public services. In this latter sense, the sign and the statue are not “public,” unless erected by public authority: the t-shirt becomes public, if worn in a public school, a law-court, by someone in the discharge or by a public functionary.
The private domain, the framework of society, is the domain not only of individuals but of groups and associations (and thus of churches and religious communities). This is why religious freedom is at once individual (freedom of conscience) and collective (freedom of religious communities). It implies that the latter organize themselves and operate freely.
6.9.2012 | 9:25am
Joseph Marshall says:
The only thing "offended" in this whole affair is somebody's private taste. It is a commonplace hubris of "school officials" to assume that part of their job is the trimming of students like topiary trees to their own private taste.
On the face of it, Mr.Swinnimer's t-shirt talks about Jesus and Life, and nothing else. The views to the contrary are mere psychological projections and nothing more. It is not even "evangelizing", really, since it says very little even about Jesus and Life. It is no more informative than a t-shirt that reads, "Ask me about my grandchildren!"
What is offensive, at least in the eyes of a thinking American, religious or not, is the notion that individual freedom of expression of any kind can be legislated or administrated out of the "public sphere" of anywhere. There is no basis whatsoever in the "establishment clause" for the restraint of individual expression. The courts have been perfectly clear about this. That clause refers to the actions of the state or representatives of the state, not those of private individuals.
The irony of all this is (believe it or not as you choose) that, in similar cases in America, the ACLU actually intervenes on the side of the student in the name of the "free expression" clause. It is a matter of the EXERCISE of religion by individuals, it's practice, and not merely "freedom of conscience".
What this and the French hajib bans point toward is a very simple fact. There is no "religious freedom" anywhere but here. There never has been. There is mere "religious toleration" at best. There is no "freedom of expression" anywhere but here. There is mere toleration of conflicting views. Toleration is revocable by the State at any time for any reason, even if it is a "democracy". Free exercise is not.
Even if Islam is "a comprehensive religious and ethical system that brooks no rivals," its free exercise and free expression is protected here. And I would also point out that, for much of its history (and maybe even yet theologically), the same description could be applied to the Catholic Church, as well as to some other bodies of Christian belief.
As an American, I like it that way. It suits my taste. And it's one of the major reasons I am proud to BE an American.
On the face of it, Mr.Swinnimer's t-shirt talks about Jesus and Life, and nothing else. The views to the contrary are mere psychological projections and nothing more. It is not even "evangelizing", really, since it says very little even about Jesus and Life. It is no more informative than a t-shirt that reads, "Ask me about my grandchildren!"
What is offensive, at least in the eyes of a thinking American, religious or not, is the notion that individual freedom of expression of any kind can be legislated or administrated out of the "public sphere" of anywhere. There is no basis whatsoever in the "establishment clause" for the restraint of individual expression. The courts have been perfectly clear about this. That clause refers to the actions of the state or representatives of the state, not those of private individuals.
The irony of all this is (believe it or not as you choose) that, in similar cases in America, the ACLU actually intervenes on the side of the student in the name of the "free expression" clause. It is a matter of the EXERCISE of religion by individuals, it's practice, and not merely "freedom of conscience".
What this and the French hajib bans point toward is a very simple fact. There is no "religious freedom" anywhere but here. There never has been. There is mere "religious toleration" at best. There is no "freedom of expression" anywhere but here. There is mere toleration of conflicting views. Toleration is revocable by the State at any time for any reason, even if it is a "democracy". Free exercise is not.
Even if Islam is "a comprehensive religious and ethical system that brooks no rivals," its free exercise and free expression is protected here. And I would also point out that, for much of its history (and maybe even yet theologically), the same description could be applied to the Catholic Church, as well as to some other bodies of Christian belief.
As an American, I like it that way. It suits my taste. And it's one of the major reasons I am proud to BE an American.
6.9.2012 | 7:26pm
AO says:
Perhaps the author his considered this in one of his many writings, but it certainly seems more pertinent whether or not it is in line with the Gospel to evangelize by fighting for individual rights. Was anyone on the school board or in the community exposed to the Gospel through this legal exercise or was the posture of defense/fighting antithetical to the claims of the Gospel? Am I allowing the Gospel to offend or am I personally just acting defensive and perhaps offensive?
6.9.2012 | 8:06pm
Rachel says:
Interesting how we, as a society, are expected to tolerate and accept everything....except Christianity. The tables have really turned. Time is really ticking wouldn't you say?
6.9.2012 | 11:51pm
arocee says:
1. The references to US law would not seem to be relevant to this Canadian case unless any specific similarities can be pointed out.
2. I recall reading a news report on this when it first came out that it was not so much the wearing of the shirt as the argumentativeness of the wearer with other students that precipitated the school administration's sanctions. Other students felt put upon by the young Swinimer's verbal contentiousness and offensiveness in support of his shirt. Am I not recalling that background story correctly?
I would fully support his legal right to wear the shirt in US schools, but, as a Christian, I would be concerned with him being verbally obnoxious about. That does not help the cause of Christ in any country, sort of along the lines of the militant Islamism pointed out above by "Dean from Ohio (although that has sometimes gone way beyond obnoxious to the point of murder, even of their own, as with the recently Taliban-poisoned school girls in Afghanistan - something to give us Westerners a bit of sobering perspective about "differences of opinion").
FWIW
2. I recall reading a news report on this when it first came out that it was not so much the wearing of the shirt as the argumentativeness of the wearer with other students that precipitated the school administration's sanctions. Other students felt put upon by the young Swinimer's verbal contentiousness and offensiveness in support of his shirt. Am I not recalling that background story correctly?
I would fully support his legal right to wear the shirt in US schools, but, as a Christian, I would be concerned with him being verbally obnoxious about. That does not help the cause of Christ in any country, sort of along the lines of the militant Islamism pointed out above by "Dean from Ohio (although that has sometimes gone way beyond obnoxious to the point of murder, even of their own, as with the recently Taliban-poisoned school girls in Afghanistan - something to give us Westerners a bit of sobering perspective about "differences of opinion").
FWIW
6.10.2012 | 12:53pm
Clement_W says:
I have posted comments on several occasions dealing with issues just like this one. God foretold exactly what would happen when we give our freedom to the state in 1 Samuel 8. The whole, not very long chapter, is dedicated to it. It also points out how much freedom God gives us, even giving us what we ask for, even if it is stupid!
6.10.2012 | 8:38pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@arocee - "1. The references to US law would not seem to be relevant to this Canadian case unless any specific similarities can be pointed out."
True, but Michael PS was commenting on freedoms in the U.S., or so I understood. That was the issue I was addressing.
True, but Michael PS was commenting on freedoms in the U.S., or so I understood. That was the issue I was addressing.
6.11.2012 | 9:16am
Ray Ingles says:
Dean - Joseph seems to have covered the ground I would have, and well. (The only thing I'd add is that, if or when "Islam" stepped *past* free exercise to work for "the U.S. Constitution [to] be supplanted by Sharia", *then* it's stepped past "free exercise".)
6.11.2012 | 9:53am
Mike Melendez says:
@arocee,
If verbal "contentiousness" was the problem, why was he asked not to wear the shirt? I'm pretty sure the shirt didn't argue with anyone. Were his parents called in to help? If his "contentiousness" continued, why was _he_ not suspended or relegated to study hall or whatever minor punishment the school could give to anyone? Did the school really believe that wearing a different shirt would have caused the boy to be less "contentious"? There is something missing here.
And yes, many of us in the U.S. are attempting to make sense of the situation with American sensibilities. We have difficulty with the parallel justice system set up in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
If verbal "contentiousness" was the problem, why was he asked not to wear the shirt? I'm pretty sure the shirt didn't argue with anyone. Were his parents called in to help? If his "contentiousness" continued, why was _he_ not suspended or relegated to study hall or whatever minor punishment the school could give to anyone? Did the school really believe that wearing a different shirt would have caused the boy to be less "contentious"? There is something missing here.
And yes, many of us in the U.S. are attempting to make sense of the situation with American sensibilities. We have difficulty with the parallel justice system set up in the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
6.11.2012 | 11:11am
Dean from Ohio says:
@Joseph - "Even if Islam is 'a comprehensive religious and ethical system that brooks no rivals,' its free exercise and free expression is protected here."
I'm assuming your modification of my phrase "comprehensive religious, political and ethical system" was intentional, to state that you agree that a comprehensive religious and ethical system would be acceptable in the U.S. without a contradictory political agenda aimed at bringing down the U.S. Constitution. If that was your intention, I agree with you. But I don't believe that such a hybrid Islam exists, without the political dimension, wherever it has gained more than a percent or two of the population. So I agree with you (as I understand your point) in principle, but I also believe that to be moot point in practice. That realization is what Westerners usually miss.
I will also state for the record that the American people can adopt a new Constitution any time they want, whether by amendments or, I suppose, of a simple amendment striking the old and substituting the new, with the same majorities--but only by Constitutional means. Aside from the many political shenanigans that Erdogan and his forces have pulled, Turkey may be the nearest example of this actually happening in the Western world and along its borders.
@ Ray Ingles - I also agree with Joseph, with the understanding I articulate immediately above. He might also have added that the Democrats and Progressives are trying to reduce free exercise of religion to "freedom of worship," a move that is playing out in the Sebelius health care tyranny.
I'm assuming your modification of my phrase "comprehensive religious, political and ethical system" was intentional, to state that you agree that a comprehensive religious and ethical system would be acceptable in the U.S. without a contradictory political agenda aimed at bringing down the U.S. Constitution. If that was your intention, I agree with you. But I don't believe that such a hybrid Islam exists, without the political dimension, wherever it has gained more than a percent or two of the population. So I agree with you (as I understand your point) in principle, but I also believe that to be moot point in practice. That realization is what Westerners usually miss.
I will also state for the record that the American people can adopt a new Constitution any time they want, whether by amendments or, I suppose, of a simple amendment striking the old and substituting the new, with the same majorities--but only by Constitutional means. Aside from the many political shenanigans that Erdogan and his forces have pulled, Turkey may be the nearest example of this actually happening in the Western world and along its borders.
@ Ray Ingles - I also agree with Joseph, with the understanding I articulate immediately above. He might also have added that the Democrats and Progressives are trying to reduce free exercise of religion to "freedom of worship," a move that is playing out in the Sebelius health care tyranny.
6.11.2012 | 5:02pm
Elmer Thiessen says:
@arocee
Was Swinimer contentious and argumentative? Not from my reading of the reports. His pastor described him as a shy person. He himself said, "I don't do it to be disrespectful or to put down anyone else's beliefs." Emma Teitel, the one reporter that I used, and she is very critical of him, said he would proselytize in science classes. But what does this mean? He was contentious in that he continued to wear the shirt. But I don't consider that to be really contentious or argumentive. These assessments are very much in the eye of the beholder. Part of my aim in the article was to expose the hollowness of such assessments.
Was Swinimer contentious and argumentative? Not from my reading of the reports. His pastor described him as a shy person. He himself said, "I don't do it to be disrespectful or to put down anyone else's beliefs." Emma Teitel, the one reporter that I used, and she is very critical of him, said he would proselytize in science classes. But what does this mean? He was contentious in that he continued to wear the shirt. But I don't consider that to be really contentious or argumentive. These assessments are very much in the eye of the beholder. Part of my aim in the article was to expose the hollowness of such assessments.
6.11.2012 | 10:15pm
pentamom says:
"I wonder how many Christians would support a student (perhaps an atheist or a Jew) wearing a t-shirt saying "Life is wasted *with* Jesus."
I wouldn't support the student. I'd want him to stop. If he asked me, I'd tell him that's how I felt. Maybe even if he didn't, if I was already in the habit of conversing with him on general matters.
And I wouldn't say that he should be suspended from school over it.
There's a fundamental distinction between "supporting" what someone does and tolerating the fact that he does it.
I wouldn't support the student. I'd want him to stop. If he asked me, I'd tell him that's how I felt. Maybe even if he didn't, if I was already in the habit of conversing with him on general matters.
And I wouldn't say that he should be suspended from school over it.
There's a fundamental distinction between "supporting" what someone does and tolerating the fact that he does it.
6.12.2012 | 4:55am
Joseph Marshall says:
It seems to me very clear that mere advocacy of anything is protected by the Constitution. What is not protected is criminal behavior: arms smuggling, money laundering, making explosives, conspiricy, homicide, supporting terrorism, ect.. Insofar as there is any serious danger of "radical Islam" here it consists of acts that are already criminalzed and not matters of advocacy of anything.
Now, of course, some things people advocate are highly likely to bring them under police surveillance of all kinds because of the possibility that they may be engaged in criminal activity, but as long as they keep the law their expression of opinions and exercise of religion is still protected. As far as Islam is concerned, there is every indication that the current police surveillance is adequate, and I don't need to lie awake nights wondering if all followers of Mohammed are inherently radical.
As far as the health care problems are concerned, the first thing we must be clear about is that individuals exercise religion, not institutions, and, particularly, not limited liability corporations such as health care providers. And it is the individual exercise of religion that is protected, not any collateral institutional activity.
If you speak for, work for, or manage such institutions, your legal status is that of an agent of that institution. And, if you are doing the institution's business, you are not freely exercising religion as an individual, you are acting as an agent and are bound by any law that binds your institution. The claim that such activity is the exercise of religion is spurious. I am a Buddhist, and I remain a Buddhist when I jaywalk, but jaywalking is not my exercise of my Buddhism. It is a legal misdemeanor for which I may be fined without any reference whatsoever to my religion.
As the old story has it, you are free to wave your fists in the air as expression. But your freedom ends at somebody else's nose. It is pretty clear where somebody else's nose is in all of these issues.
Now, of course, some things people advocate are highly likely to bring them under police surveillance of all kinds because of the possibility that they may be engaged in criminal activity, but as long as they keep the law their expression of opinions and exercise of religion is still protected. As far as Islam is concerned, there is every indication that the current police surveillance is adequate, and I don't need to lie awake nights wondering if all followers of Mohammed are inherently radical.
As far as the health care problems are concerned, the first thing we must be clear about is that individuals exercise religion, not institutions, and, particularly, not limited liability corporations such as health care providers. And it is the individual exercise of religion that is protected, not any collateral institutional activity.
If you speak for, work for, or manage such institutions, your legal status is that of an agent of that institution. And, if you are doing the institution's business, you are not freely exercising religion as an individual, you are acting as an agent and are bound by any law that binds your institution. The claim that such activity is the exercise of religion is spurious. I am a Buddhist, and I remain a Buddhist when I jaywalk, but jaywalking is not my exercise of my Buddhism. It is a legal misdemeanor for which I may be fined without any reference whatsoever to my religion.
As the old story has it, you are free to wave your fists in the air as expression. But your freedom ends at somebody else's nose. It is pretty clear where somebody else's nose is in all of these issues.
6.12.2012 | 12:35pm
Mike Melendez says:
So arocee, which is it? Was the student actually contentious? Or was the wearing of a t-shirt considered "contentious"? As in, "Your t-shirt is yelling at me!"
Put another way, if we disallow all things that someone considers offensive, then none of us would ever do anything.
Put another way, if we disallow all things that someone considers offensive, then none of us would ever do anything.
6.13.2012 | 11:13pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@Joseph Marshall-"As far as the health care problems are concerned, the first thing we must be clear about is that individuals exercise religion, not institutions, and, particularly, not limited liability corporations such as health care providers. And it is the individual exercise of religion that is protected, not any collateral institutional activity. "
Not so; the Constitution knows no such distinction. Merely because two or more individuals band together, they do not lose their right to the free exercise of religion. Churches, associations, non-profits, hospitals--all these may create standards that are motivated and carried out with primary regard to religion. Hiring, firing, use of money, standards of conduct--all they may carry out freely.
This we'll defend.
Not so; the Constitution knows no such distinction. Merely because two or more individuals band together, they do not lose their right to the free exercise of religion. Churches, associations, non-profits, hospitals--all these may create standards that are motivated and carried out with primary regard to religion. Hiring, firing, use of money, standards of conduct--all they may carry out freely.
This we'll defend.
6.15.2012 | 7:06pm
Joseph Marshall says:
The legal status of "agency" has long been a principle of common law, and the courts have consistently upheld the notion that the actions of the agent doing the corporate entities' business is not individual but, rather, the actions of the organization itself which is subject to law and regulation of the organization. Now I don't know if there has been a court test of whether such actions can be exempted from government regulation because they are also "free exercise of religion", but we may see one soon.
I doubt the courts will uphold this. If they do, they will either have to take on the daunting task of creating a standard that distinguishes "religious agency" from "secular agency", which would mean a definitive and limiting statement of what "free exercise of religion" consists of. Try to write one yourself that would cover all creeds and all agents.
The other option would be to throw out the standard of "agency" altogether and come up with an entirely new standard of what corporate actions subject to law actually are, since a corporation can only act through through the actions of its employees. This would leave the entire field of corporate law in total chaos.
I, for one, can't see them doing either.
I doubt the courts will uphold this. If they do, they will either have to take on the daunting task of creating a standard that distinguishes "religious agency" from "secular agency", which would mean a definitive and limiting statement of what "free exercise of religion" consists of. Try to write one yourself that would cover all creeds and all agents.
The other option would be to throw out the standard of "agency" altogether and come up with an entirely new standard of what corporate actions subject to law actually are, since a corporation can only act through through the actions of its employees. This would leave the entire field of corporate law in total chaos.
I, for one, can't see them doing either.
6.19.2012 | 5:12pm
Steve Cornell says:
Much of this relates to the distorted notions of tolerance. Ken Myers picked up on this when he offered reflection on A. J. Conyers’s book on the modern preoccupation with tolerance, The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit.
Conyers suggested that,
“The modern version of toleration is all about power—the power of individuals to be free from interference and the power of governments to guarantee individual autonomy by stripping all other sources of authority. Tolerance (as a modern doctrine) has little to do with the survival of minority groups and everything to do with the centralizing of power. Tolerance is not so much a virtue as a strategy. What happens to a society when the strategy of tolerance has been practiced for so long that no truths are any longer self-evident?”
How much more irrational can it be than to demand zero-tolerance toward intolerance with no exceptions being tolerated?
In a free society, people want to know who gets to set the morals that everyone must tolerate. Who defines what we must accept as lawful and good?
The popular version of tolerance has left many feeling that they’re under some form of societal coercion — forcing them to affirm a politically approved set of morals and values. And, when people feel this way, they perceive it as a threat to liberty.
We need to understand that tolerance is a virtue that can only function in the context of actual disagreements. The virtue of tolerance is unnecessary to those who surrender or minimize their differences.
Truly tolerant people treat respectfully those with whom they strongly disagree. Forced agreement only threatens true tolerance. It will do no good to pretend that disagreements do not exist. And how can a people boast their love of diversity when they hold a form of tolerance that leads to monolithic culture where everyone conceals differences lest others take offense?
Conyers suggested that,
“The modern version of toleration is all about power—the power of individuals to be free from interference and the power of governments to guarantee individual autonomy by stripping all other sources of authority. Tolerance (as a modern doctrine) has little to do with the survival of minority groups and everything to do with the centralizing of power. Tolerance is not so much a virtue as a strategy. What happens to a society when the strategy of tolerance has been practiced for so long that no truths are any longer self-evident?”
How much more irrational can it be than to demand zero-tolerance toward intolerance with no exceptions being tolerated?
In a free society, people want to know who gets to set the morals that everyone must tolerate. Who defines what we must accept as lawful and good?
The popular version of tolerance has left many feeling that they’re under some form of societal coercion — forcing them to affirm a politically approved set of morals and values. And, when people feel this way, they perceive it as a threat to liberty.
We need to understand that tolerance is a virtue that can only function in the context of actual disagreements. The virtue of tolerance is unnecessary to those who surrender or minimize their differences.
Truly tolerant people treat respectfully those with whom they strongly disagree. Forced agreement only threatens true tolerance. It will do no good to pretend that disagreements do not exist. And how can a people boast their love of diversity when they hold a form of tolerance that leads to monolithic culture where everyone conceals differences lest others take offense?
