| The New Fundamentalists |
The New Fundamentalists
AN ARTICLE OF FAITH among many liberals is that religion and
tolerance don't go well together. In a recent editorial, for example,
the New York Times matter-of-factly derided conservative
Christians as "the most religiously intolerant sector of American
political life." That's quite a sector. It includes tens of millions of
believers in the African-American, Latino, and Asian communities, male
and female, from every conceivable walk of life. Sure, there are plenty
of crusty fundamentalists in the mix. But other actors are manifestly
better candidates for the Times's designation.
Take public education elites. Last week the D.C. Board of Education
approved new Health Education Standards for the city's public schools,
including guidelines for teaching about AIDS, sexuality, family life,
and drug use. Ministers, activists, and parents complain--with good
reason--that the standards are strongly biased against abstinence-only
curricula. There are warnings about using "correct terminology" to
discuss issues such as sexual orientation. There are specific
guidelines for teaching about "different family structures"--gay
couples, for example--to children in kindergarten.
That's going to make it tough for organizations that hold conservative
views of marriage and human sexuality to continue their outreach
programs to at-risk kids. And it comes at exactly the wrong time: New
data show that the District boasts 12 times the national rate of new
AIDS cases, the worst in the nation. One might suspect that school
officials would welcome help from just about any quarter--yes, even
from members of the faith community. "The chancellor has placed a
moratorium on all external providers of health and consumer education,"
Richard Nyankori, assistant to the School Chancellor, reportedly told
one abstinence-only group. "Her goal is to ensure programs are
consistent with D.C. standards."
The chancellor's decision seems aimed at one particular category of
provider: those uncomfortable with a boundless view of "sexual
exploration" as the defining feature of childhood and adolescence. It
does not matter to education mandarins that large numbers of parents in
this city--mostly African-American and socially conservative--find the
new standards offensive (as the comments from many of the 75 local
ministers who attended a recent Clergy Leadership Summit on HIV-AIDS
surely make clear). Nor does it appear relevant that many parents want
their kids involved in community-based programs that uphold their
values.
This moratorium on common sense finds support from a second candidate for the Most Intolerant Sector Award: media gatekeepers.
Earlier this month WAMU's Kojo Nnamdi took up the school standards issue, along with guest host Marc Fisher of the Washington Post,
on Nnamdi's popular "D.C. Politics Hour." In the dock was Richard
Urban, co-founder of Ultra Teen Choice, an abstinence-only program
operating in D.C. public schools for the last four years. Urban's
program is one of several facing possible expulsion. WAMU's listeners
might have expected a discussion about the mechanics of these programs,
their values, or why many D.C. parents like them. Instead, Fisher and
Nnamdi staged a bare-knuckled assault on Urban's alleged religious
views. Though Ultra Teen Choice is ostensibly secular--it "guides youth
toward the formation of two-parent families and positive character
development"--Urban acknowledges that he is a member of the Unification
Church.
And on it went. To be sure, there are good reasons to challenge the
presence in public schools of certain organizations, such as those
linked to radical Islam. After all, a tolerant society need not condone
intolerance. And the Unification Church is not without controversy; it
has been accused of brainwashing and authoritarianism. Parents have a
right to know the identity and values of groups influencing their kids
(just as they're entitled to know the agenda of public educators).
Tutoring and mentoring programs cannot be a device for proselytizing on
school grounds.
Yet there was no evidence of this kind offered against Urban or his
organization. Instead, he was declared guilty--of extremism,
presumably--only by association. The attack on his faith looked very
much like a proxy for an indictment of traditional views about
sexuality and marriage.
I raised this issue in an email with WAMU's Kay Summers, director of
public information. "Mr. Urban did not initially answer the question as
it applied to ULTRA Teen Choice, which is why Mr. Fisher and then Mr.
Nnamdi continued to ask for clarification," she insisted. "Mr. Fisher
did not ask about Mr. Urban's personal religious beliefs " Well, if
we're looking for an exercise in obfuscation and deception, we have it:
There were no untoward insinuations about personal religious beliefs,
claims WAMU--just gentle prodding for clarification.
The saturation of presidential politics with religion has surely
heightened sensitivities on all sides. Politicians and activists have a
constitutional right to bring their religious values into the public
square--and can't cry foul when they're questioned about it. But when
education and media elites use their position as a kind of Star Chamber
to blacklist groups they don't like, then we've taken a step backward,
a step away from pluralism.
And there's nothing enlightened or progressive or tolerant about it.
Joe Loconte is a senior fellow with Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy and a frequent contributor to THE DAILY STANDARD. | ||
ULTRA Teen Choice | PO Box 48608 | Washington, DC | 20002 |
 |  |