Bishop John Tong smiles in front of Catholic Cathedral of Immaculate Conception in Hong Kong. The new head of Hong Kong's Catholic church is promising to help unite China's Catholics and work toward religious freedom. Tong assumed his role as head of Hong Kong's diocese in April. He replaced the long-serving Joseph Zen, an outspoken champion of religious liberty who was mistrusted by Beijing.

At a time when religious persecution is at the heart of the world’s most violent conflicts, religious freedom matters.

That’s why the 2009 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom should be required reading for policymakers in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.

The report, released May 1, documents in chilling detail the global assault on freedom of religion and belief, making a powerful case for the need to take religious freedom more seriously in U.S. foreign policy.

The report doesn’t come from the left or the right. It comes from a federal commission that is independent and bipartisan under the leadership of 10 commissioners who did their homework.

This year, the commission names 13 “countries of particular concern” – Burma, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – that engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” violations of religious freedom.

Another 11 countries are on the commission’s watch list: Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Venezuela.

The worst of the worst include China, where unregistered Protestants are frequently arrested, Falun Gong practitioners are imprisoned and tortured, Catholics are detained and harassed, and Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists are repressed in growing numbers.

Conditions are less severe, but still serious, in “watch list” countries. Venezuela, for example, is now a hotbed of anti-Semitism fomented by the anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions of the government under President Hugo Chavez. As a consequence, many Jews have fled the country.

Religious freedom is practically nonexistent in Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States with a long history of promising, but failing, to do better.

Members of minority Muslim groups – including Shiites, who make up 10 percent to 15 percent of the population – are frequently detained and harassed.

Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and others among the nearly three million expatriate workers must conform to Saudi religious customs.

Although non-Muslim workers are supposed to be permitted to worship in private, their services are often subject to surveillance and raids by Saudi authorities.

Just about every religious group, it seems, suffers persecution somewhere in the world today. Christians are targeted in Iraq, Baha’is are arrested in Iran, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned in Tajikistan, Muslims suffer discrimination in Russia, and the list goes on.

Beyond delivering bad news, the commission also makes extensive policy recommendations to the Obama administration and Congress, including asking the secretary of state to designate “countries of particular concern.”

Under the International Religious Freedom Act, the president is required to take action opposing violations of religious freedom in countries so designated.

Given the complex economic and political realities of American ties with some of the worst offenders, religious freedom and other human rights issues often take a back seat in U.S. foreign policy. Saudi Arabia, for example, has been a CPC since 2004 – but a State Department waiver lets the Saudis off the hook.

Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries where the U.S. is deeply involved in nation-building, conditions for freedom of religion and belief continue to deteriorate.

A strong case can be made that the lack of religious freedom is one of the greatest barriers to peace and security in both societies.

We ignore this global crisis at our peril. Consider the hard reality behind the idealism that animates the commission’s report: International religious freedom is both an issue of national security for the United States and an essential condition for building societies that are free and democratic.

Assaults on freedom of religion and belief aren’t side issues; they are urgent matters of conscience that must be at the center of U.S. foreign policy.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

———

FULL REPORT

To read the full 2009 report from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom go to: www.uscirf.gov

The latest flashpoint in the never-ending conflict over religion in public schools is “Spirituality for Kids,” a program developed by a leader of the Kabbalah Centre International in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles Times reports the spirituality lessons are being taught in a number of L.A. elementary schools – much to the consternation of some parents and teachers who see the program as a Trojan horse for getting religion through the schoolhouse gate in violation of the First Amendment.

Defenders of Spirituality for Kids, including some L.A. school officials, characterize the class as being about ethics and tools for life, saying it has nothing to do with religion. Creators of the program describe it as “about reawakening the inherent human spirit through lessons in cause and effect, and activities based on universal human truths.”

Critics charge that this is nothing more than a thinly disguised way to promote a form of cabala (broadly defined as a mystical interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures) taught by the Kabbalah Centre.

Los Angeles Times reports that teachers using the program don’t mention cabala, but they use terms consistent with the teachings of the Kabbalah Centre, telling children that “their actions cause reactions, and to allow their inner ‘light’ to shine by overcoming an internal ‘opponent’ who urges them to make bad decisions.”

Spirituality for Kids isn’t the first attempt to translate a faith-based teaching into a secular program that can be used in public schools.

Thirty years ago, an appeals court ruled against the use of transcendental meditation techniques in public schools because the court saw the practice as inseparable from its religious underpinnings.

In recent years, Narconon, an anti-drug initiative associated with the Church of Scientology, has stirred considerable controversy when used in California’s public schools.

It is entirely possible that some practices with religious roots – yoga, for example – might pass constitutional muster in public schools if sufficiently de-linked from religious teachings and language. But any program promising to foster “spiritual development” is bound to raise constitutional red flags.

Advocates of Spirituality for Kids argue that “spirituality” can be defined in nonreligious terms. But for First Amendment purposes, that’s a tough sell. A spiritual worldview claiming to offer “universal truths” through finding the “inner light” is likely to be viewed as a religious worldview by the courts.

Moreover, school endorsement of a universal, nonsectarian understanding of spiritual life will be seen by many parents and religious leaders as a direct challenge to their own faith traditions. For some traditions, such as Christianity and Islam, inner life or spiritual growth must be guided by revelations found in scripture. Otherwise, it is seen as dangerous and potentially demonic.

Pop star Madonna, an active proponent of Spirituality for Kids, unwittingly underscores the definitional dilemma when she says: “I like to draw a line between religion and spirituality. For me, the idea of God, or the idea of spirit, has nothing to do with religion. Religion is about separating people, and I don’t think that was ever the Creator’s intention.”

Madonna, of course, has every right to proclaim her belief in a God beyond religion. But her line between religion and spirituality can’t be constitutionally drawn by public school officials. Like other religious worldviews, spirituality (variously defined) may be discussed in the classroom, but only in the context of objective teaching about religions.

Spirituality for Kids does have another option that is legal under current law: It can become a community program offered to students during nonschool hours without any involvement or sponsorship by school officials.

In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Good News Club, a Christian-based group that teaches values to kids, to use school facilities after school on the same basis as other community groups.

As for school officials, the spirit they need to consult on this question is the spirit of the First Amendment which guards against religious indoctrination in public education – by whatever name.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org

A man enters the Iowa House gallery past signs supporting gay marriage at the Statehouse in Des Moines.

Is it all over but the shouting? Proponents of gay marriage may have reason to think so after major victories in Iowa and Vermont this month.

On April 3, a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and four days later the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor’s veto to enact a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

Of course, four states (Massachusetts and Connecticut are the other two) is still a long way from 50. Culture-war shouting will continue unabated on many fronts: lawsuits, protests, ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments.

But when same-sex couples line up to get married in America’s heartland starting later this month, gay-marriage advocates will have the political wind at their backs. Legislatures in New York, New Jersey, Maine and New Hampshire appear poised to legalize same-sex marriage this year.

Fueling this momentum is growing public support for some kind of legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

In Iowa, for example, 26 percent of adults support gay marriage and an additional 28 percent favor civil unions, according to a survey from the University of Iowa. As growing numbers of voters view gay marriage as a civil rights issue, more legislators and judges will be emboldened to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

And consider the demographics. The same University of Iowa poll found that nearly 59 percent of Iowans under 30 support gay marriage and fully three-fourths want some kind of formal recognition of same-sex partnerships. Nationwide almost half (46 percent) of young adults (18-34) now support same-sex marriage, up 9 points from 2006, according to Public Religion Research.

As gay marriage gains ground, the question of how legalizing same-sex marriage affects religious freedom becomes less theoretical and more urgent.

Proponents of gay marriage hail the Iowa court decision as a victory for religious liberty because it draws a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage. As Americans United for Separation of Church and State puts it, “Civil law should reflect equal protection for all citizens and not be anchored in religious dogma.”

But the other side argues that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to persecution of Christians who criticize homosexuality. In a news release after the Iowa decision, the Traditional Values Coalition warned the ruling “will be used to force pastors to conduct same-sex ceremonies or face penalties.”

The Iowa justices themselves see no threat to religious freedom from gay marriage, stating that “a religious denomination can still define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and a marriage ceremony performed by a minister, priest, rabbi or other person . . . does not lose its meaning as a sacrament or other religious institution.”

Nevertheless, difficult questions remain. Although most legal experts agree that the First Amendment clearly prohibits the state from coercing religious leaders to perform same-sex marriages, they also agree that legal recognition of gay marriage will inevitably lead to clashes between same-sex couples and some religious businesses and social service agencies. (For a full discussion of these emerging conflicts, I highly recommend “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” published last year by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.)

To what extent, if any, should the law protect the right of conscientious objectors to refuse service to gay couples? And how far may government go in requiring religious institutions to accommodate same-sex marriage?

Answering these questions will not be easy. But people on all sides of the debate have a vested interest in finding ways to ensure protection for religious liberty in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage. Religious people and institutions, of course, want to maintain their freedom to preach and practice their faith in places where gay marriage is legal.

And advocates of gay marriage want to win public support for their civil right to marry. According to a 2008 survey taken by Public Religion Research, when asked whether they would favor allowing gay couples to marry “if the law guaranteed that no church or congregation would be required to perform marriages for gay couples,” support for legalizing same-sex marriage jumped from 29 percent to 43 percent.

Gay marriage is here to stay. And religious objections to gay marriage are not likely to evaporate anytime soon. Our best option – the one that most serves the common good – is to work together to find the right balance between equality and religious freedom, two of our nation’s most cherished ideals.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Students always have been and are today free to pray in public schools alone or in groups, as long as their prayers don't disrupt the school or interfere with the rights of others.

Hundreds of Christians rallied outside a high school in Santa Rosa County, Fla., earlier this month to protest a court order ending the involvement of local school officials in prayers, proselytizing and a school-sponsored baccalaureate service.

The crowd’s outrage was directed both at the American Civil Liberties Union for bringing the lawsuit and a federal judge for issuing an injunction that will change how things have been done in Santa Rosa County for a very long time.

“We want the children to know we are for them,” said one pastor, “even though they took Baccalaureate away from them.”

In reality, however, the court hasn’t taken anything meaningful away from the religious community. On the contrary, the judge is actually giving Christians in the county schools something far better than they had before.

After all, which is better for their Christian faith? A baccalaureate service with watered-down to-whom-it-may-concern prayers and required attendance? Or a community-sponsored baccalaureate with real prayers and sermons attended by students and parents who want to be there?

And which is better for their religious freedom? School officials imposing prayers and proselytizing kids? Or school officials staying neutral about religion while guarding the rights of all students to express their beliefs?

Given the choice, many Christian parents in Santa Rosa County might still want school officials involved in praying with students on the assumption that school-sponsored prayers will reflect the majority faith.

But as the religious demographics shift (and they are shifting fast, even in the Florida Panhandle) these same parents will probably take refuge in the First Amendment and demand that school officials stay out of the religion business.

The good people of Santa Rosa County are victims of the Big Myth that federal judges and the ACLU are kicking God out of the public schools. For more than 40 years, a host of irresponsible and self-serving religious and political leaders, abetted by sloppy reporting by the news media, have convinced many Americans that the Supreme Court won’t let Johnny pray in the “godless public schools.”

Nonsense. The Court has never outlawed prayer or banned religion from public schools. Students always have been and are today free to pray in public schools alone or in groups, as long as their prayers don’t disrupt the school or interfere with the rights of others.

What the Supreme Court did do beginning in the early 1960s – and what the federal judge in the Santa Rosa County case reaffirmed this month – is strike down state-sponsored religious activities in public schools. According to the Court, the First Amendment prohibits the government, including school officials, from either imposing or denigrating religion.

But there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that keeps Johnny from saying grace at lunch, asking for divine help before the math quiz, forming a prayer club, or gathering around the flagpole to pray with classmates.

You wouldn’t know this, by the way, from reading some of the local newspapers in Santa Rosa County.

An article about the rally described the judge’s action as “an order against any prayer or promotion of religion in Santa Rosa County Schools.” No mention was made of the myriad ways students are free to pray and share their faith while in school.

Here’s the truth about God in public schools: There is more student religious expression in public schools today than at any time in the past 100 years.

Students are forming hundreds of religious clubs (mostly Christian), handing out religious literature, praying with their friends, speaking up about their beliefs in class, and in many other ways expressing their faith during the school day. So much for the godless public school.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that all school officials are getting this right. Some, as in Santa Rosa County, persist in unconstitutionally promoting religion (their religion) while others insist on unconstitutionally censoring student religious expression.

But growing numbers of educators understand that their job is not to take sides in religion – but to represent the First Amendment by protecting the rights of every student and parent.

Thanks to the court order, things are going to change in Santa Rosa County public schools – for the better. Students who want it will have their baccalaureate, sponsored by the community and featuring authentic expressions of faith. And students who wish to pray can do so, without school officials telling them when or how to do it.

Prayer isn’t banned from public schools – it just needs to come in through the First Amendment door.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

President Barack Obama, center, and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., right, bow their heads during a prayer at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on Feb. 5. Obama used the platform of the National Prayer Breakfast to unveil a new-look White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that features a team of advisers from the religious and secular world - mostly ideological allies, but also a few rivals.

When President Obama launched his faith-based initiative at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5, he promised not only to sustain the Bush administration’s signature domestic program — but to expand it.

For religious groups, this means continued access to billions of federal dollars for a wide range of social services — from homeless shelters to drug rehabilitation programs — run by houses of worship across the nation.

Critics of the Bush faith-based initiative have long charged that tax money has flowed to religious groups without sufficient constitutional safeguards against such practices as religious discrimination in hiring and proselytizing in government-funded programs.

In announcing his version of the program, Obama pledged not to blur “the line our founders wisely drew between church and state.” But it remains to be seen exactly where this president intends to draw that line.

Many religious and political conservatives are pressuring the new administration not to place limits on preaching or hiring, arguing that religious groups must be free to carry out their mission in ways authentic to their faith. Meanwhile, many civil libertarians are warning of more political and legal fallout if the proselytizing and employment issues aren’t addressed.

Just this month, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court to allow taxpayers to challenge public funding of a Baptist child care agency in Kentucky that Americans United alleges “proselytizes youngsters in its care and discriminates against gay employees who do not share its belief that homosexuality is sinful.”

However Obama resolves this debate — and the betting is that he will side with civil rights groups and church-state watchdogs — houses of worship should think twice about the wisdom of getting into bed with the government in the first place.

During the Bush era, I asked an evangelical leader if he thought sending tax money to religious groups for social services was constitutional. He said yes — but he still advises congregations not to take the money. The government, he said, is like a python: Once you are entangled, you get the life squeezed out of you.

Lest we forget, the establishment clause of the First Amendment is intended not only to prevent religious control of government, but also government control of religion. State-imposed regulations and conditions inevitably dilute the faith in faith-based programs. As they say in Washington, with shekels come shackles.

Government money also threatens religious autonomy and freedom. Under the First Amendment, religious groups in America have always relied on the voluntary support of adherents to advance their mission. As a consequence, faith groups have been free to speak truth to power without fear of state reprisal. But reliance on government support would surely muffle that prophetic voice.

In stark contrast to the moribund, tax-supported churches in Western Europe, thousands of American faith communities thrive in the marketplace of religious competition. Separating church from state is very good for religion and essential for full religious liberty.

Of course, the temptation is to take the money — especially at a time when so many people are in such dire need of help. But when government funding compromises the faith mission, undermines religious independence, and creates dependency on government, it is too high a price to pay.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

The latest death knell for freedom of speech comes not from North Korea or Iran, but from that bastion of democratic freedom known as the United Kingdom.

Earlier this month, British authorities deported Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, declaring him a danger to “public security.”

Wilders’ offense is that he offends. He stirs outrage by comparing the Quran to Mein Kampf – and disseminating his film depicting Islam as a terrorist religion.

Although invited to the U.K. by a member of the House of Lords to screen his screed, Wilders is apparently too hot for Britain to handle. Meanwhile back home in Amsterdam, the Court of Appeals has decided to prosecute Wilders for “hate speech.”

Like many assaults on free speech, the actions of the British government and Dutch courts get a pass in many quarters because Geert Wilders is such an unsavory target. Many Europeans find his message crude and dangerous – and view him as little more than an attention-seeking bigot.

British officials defend the deportation of Wilders by appealing to public safety. And given the violent protests after the Danish cartoon controversy several years ago, they have reason to worry. But the answer is to protect the speaker and prosecute the lawbreakers – not to allow a heckler’s veto.

If the censorship of Wilders was an isolated incident, then I might be less alarmed. But it comes at a time when freedom of speech is losing ground in nations across the globe, most disturbingly in the democracies of Europe.

Last fall, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on all countries to pass laws prohibiting “defamation of religion.” Introduced by Muslim states with support from nations like Venezuela and Belarus, the statement passed 85-50 with 42 cowardly abstentions.

The irony, of course, is that the chief sponsors of the U.N. resolution are the very governments with anti-blasphemy laws that protect only the majority faith and ban all religious dissent.

Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, an independent human rights group, charges that the resolution legitimizes “the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.”

The U.N. action and efforts within European nations to prohibit “hate speech” are Orwellian signs that human rights are being redefined to permit violations of human rights.

As Neuer points out, “human rights were designed to protect individuals – to guarantee every person free speech and free exercise of religion – but most certainly not to shield any set of beliefs, religion included.”

Laws prohibiting defamation of religion will do nothing to uphold Islam or protect Muslims. On the contrary, such efforts will only empower radicals and endanger moderate Muslims who speak out within Muslim states and within Europe’s Muslim communities.

Consider, to cite one of many examples, the two men in Afghanistan who recently “defamed Islam” by publishing a modified version of the Quran – and now face 20 years in prison.

Meanwhile in Germany, Spain and other European countries, Muslim critics of radical Islam routinely suffer death threats and intimidation from extremists.

Of course, verbal attacks on Islam and Muslims by people like Geert Wilders do have a negative impact on the lives of European Muslims by helping to create a climate of fear and intolerance. But attempts to put a lid on free speech make the problem worse, deepening anger and resentment toward Muslims.

The solution is more freedom, not less: Freedom to proclaim the truth as you know it, freedom to confront differences openly, and freedom to counter the voices of hate.

Those who don’t like the speech of Geert Wilders (and count me in that number), should drown him out with speech we do like – and not use the engine of government to shut him up.

Governments in Europe or anywhere else are deluded if they hope to appease radical Islamists and avoid violence by banning speech. Extremists within Islam – or within any religion – will not be mollified by “hate speech” laws. They will not stop until they silence all dissent.

History teaches that when people surrender their freedom to keep the peace, they end by losing both.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Charles Darwin

Whether by random selection or grand design, Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were both born 200 years ago on Feb. 12, 1809.

Vastly different in background and education, they grew up to become two of the most polarizing figures of their era.

But while Lincoln is now widely lionized as a unifying leader, Darwin remains one of the few historical thinkers whose very name can provoke a fight.

And what a fight it has been. In the United States, fierce opposition to Darwin – or more specifically to Darwin’s theory of evolution – has been spearheaded for decades by conservative Christians who pit their interpretation of the biblical account of creation against what they see as the false and dangerous idea that human beings and other living things have evolved over time through natural selection.

Unfortunately, the locus of the battle has been and continues to be public schools, institutions largely unprepared and unequipped to broker ideological conflicts between religion and science.

Lawyers and judges haven’t been able to put the controversy to rest despite two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1968, an Arkansas law banning the teaching of evolution in schools was declared unconstitutional by the Court under the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

Then in 1987, the Court struck down a Louisiana law mandating “balanced treatment” of evolution and creationism, ruling that the First Amendment bars religious views from being taught as science in public schools.

But opponents of evolution keep coming back to fight another day.

The latest battleground is Texas, where last month the State Board of Education tentatively dropped the requirement that students explore the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution – a provision that many science educators charge has been used to promote creationism in schools.

The new language requires students to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing.” Supporters of teaching evolution aren’t declaring victory yet; a final vote is expected in March.

Opponents of evolution in Texas and other states want to make the debate about the freedom of students to learn about the “weaknesses” of evolution.

Unlike the creationist arguments of the past, this strategy has broad popular appeal. According to a recent Zogby poll, 80 percent of respondents agreed that “teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory.”

Of course, who can be against “academic freedom”? But the real question – the one that concerns the science community – is, Who gets to define “weaknesses”?

Yes, there are questions still to be answered about evolution, just as there are unanswered questions about any scientific theory. For the vast majority of scientists, however, the theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and no credible scientific evidence has been found to challenge its major tenets.

Science organizations worry that pushing for evolution’s “weaknesses” to be taught in public schools is little more than a back-door attempt to undermine the teaching of evolution.

They are right to worry. What’s most disturbing about this fight is the damage it does to science education.

I won’t go so far as to blame America’s widespread scientific illiteracy on our culture wars over evolution. But I think it’s fair to say that endless conflicts and lawsuits contribute to dumbed-down textbooks and teacher avoidance of the much-feared “e-word.”

I’m all for exposing students to some of the philosophical, religious and political issues surrounding the challenges to evolution – as part of studying the history of science, for example.

But at a time when American high school students rank 27th among students from developed nations in scientific literacy, and in the face of environmental crisis and economic uncertainty, the U.S. can’t afford for biology classrooms to be church-state war zones.

The Texas state board got it right: Encourage students to evaluate scientific theories, but make sure they learn how to do so using the scientific method.

Love him or hate him, 200 years after Charles Darwin’s birth his theory of evolution has largely won the day in the world of science – forever changing how we understand ourselves and the world around us.

But with religious opposition still at a fever pitch, Darwin is likely to remain a figure of controversy and conflict far into the future. After all, it took 400 years for Galileo to get his apology.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson became the first openly gay religious leader to pray at an inaugural event.

In a week of historic firsts, the swearing in of Barack Obama as the first African-American president of the United States was of such significance that other breaks with the past during inauguration week have gotten little attention.

But now that the crowds have dispersed and Washington is once again consumed with the business of government, it’s worth pausing to consider some of the less-noted inaugural “firsts” that tell us something about what kind of nation we are – and what kind of nation we might become:

• President Obama’s description of America as “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers” marked the first time the latter four groups had ever been mentioned in an inaugural address. Surprisingly, it was only the fourth time the words “Christians” or “Christian” had been used.

• Obama’s selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical leader, to give the invocation at the inauguration was the first instance I can find of a president’s giving a religious leader with whom he openly disagrees on major public-policy issues a prominent role in the ceremony.

Warren, in turn, did the unexpected by rejecting the nonsectarian language often heard on these occasions and praying in the name of Jesus. Note, however, that he did so in the first person (“I humbly ask this”), thereby acknowledging that not everyone prays in the same way or to the same God.

• Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson became the first openly gay religious leader to pray at an inaugural event. Viewed by many as a counterweight to Warren (whose selection caused an outcry among supporters of gay rights), Robinson prayed in the most universal religious language imaginable, invoking “the God of our many understandings.”

• And for the first time, a woman, the Rev. Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), led the national prayer service held the day after the inauguration at the National Cathedral. She was joined by 19 other religious leaders from Islam, Hinduism, many varieties of Christianity and three branches of Judaism.

Taken together, Obama’s choices of language and people signal first and foremost that he wants to be seen as president of all the people – believers of every stripe as well as those who have no religious affiliation.

More broadly, the symbolic message of the week might be described as unity in the interest of diversity: Yes, we are a nation of many religions and beliefs.

But as citizens we must affirm across our differences a shared commitment to treating one another with fairness and respect in the public square of America.

On a more prosaic level, Obama’s acknowledgment of our religious and philosophical diversity calls the nation to face demographic facts.

Gone are the days when any one faith can dominate our public life. Protestants in this historically Protestant-majority nation will soon number less than half of the population. Moreover, as the prayers of Rick Warren and Gene Robinson illustrate, Protestants themselves are extraordinarily diverse.

Whether you welcome or fear the pluralistic America on display during the inauguration (and Americans are divided about this), diversity is here to stay.

That means if we hope to live in peace – and continue to build one nation out of many – we must finally live up to the First Amendment’s promise of a level playing field for people of all faiths and none.

As Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Native Americans, Muslims, nonbelievers and other past and present victims of discrimination can attest, we have come a long way in the struggle for religious freedom – but we still have a distance to go.

For his part, President Obama seems confident that we can meet the new challenges of diversity. As he put it in his inaugural address, “we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness.”

Whether he is right remains to be seen. Negotiating America’s expanding religious and ideological differences in the years ahead will be no easy task; it will test our commitment to the religious-liberty principles of the First Amendment as never before in our history.

If all Americans have a real place at the table – beyond symbolism to substance – then our bold experiment in religious freedom may yet succeed. If not, it will surely fail.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

When President Obama took office Tuesday, he recited the prescribed oath – and then Chief Justice John Roberts asked him to repeat four additional words found nowhere in the Constitution: “So help me God.”

If Michael Newdow is watching, he will not be happy. Last month, the high-profile atheist filed suit to enjoin the chief justice from adding “so help me God” – and to bar the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring clergy-led prayers.

Newdow is unlikely to prevail. Either the lawsuit will be dismissed for lack of standing (no showing of sufficient injury) or will fail because the court views inaugural prayers much like legislative prayers upheld by the Supreme Court in Marsh v. Chambers (1983).

But win or lose, Newdow has stirred a heated discussion about the meaning and scope of “no establishment” of religion under the First Amendment.

Polls tell us that the majority of Americans support the principle of church-state separation, but think Newdow goes too far. Most people want and expect presidential inaugurations to have prayers and references to God.

But however unpopular, Newdow pushes us to think about why we insist on ceremonial religion on state occasions. Even if courts continue to uphold such practices, are they consistent with our national commitment to uphold religious freedom for believers and nonbelievers alike?

Some proponents of public religion argue from tradition: Didn’t George Washington himself add “so help me God” to the oath – and hasn’t every president since followed his example? And hasn’t clergy-led prayer always solemnized these occasions, reminding us of our religious heritage?

Actually, the answer is “no” to all of the above. Despite what we may have learned in school, Washington did not add “so help me God,” or at least there is no historical evidence of his having done so. The story of Washington adding these words to the oath didn’t appear until 65 years after he was sworn in as president.

Of course, Washington may not have felt the need to mention God in the oath (or have a member of the clergy pray), as his inaugural address was filled with references to the Almighty – and even included a prayer.

Not until 1881, when Chester A. Arthur became president after the assassination of James Garfield, do we have a documented case of “so help me God” being added to the official oath.

Today’s practice of the chief justice asking the president to repeat the phrase dates only to 1933. Moreover, clergy-led inaugural prayer is also of fairly recent vintage, having started in 1937.

As with so many stories about the practices of the Founders, historical reality often contradicts popular myth.

Beyond the question of tradition, we might ask what practices are relevant and appropriate in a pluralistic nation where 84 percent belong to every religion imaginable – and 16 percent say they have no religious affiliation.

Take, for example, the brouhaha surrounding Obama’s choice of pastors at inaugural events. His selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical, to deliver the invocation created an outcry from the left. His choice of Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal bishop, to pray at a pre-inaugural event caused a stir on the right.

Clearly, the “good old days” when the Rev. Billy Graham or anyone else could be called the “nation’s pastor” are long gone.

One prayer no longer fits all, if it ever did. We pray in different ways to different gods or to no god. Instead of clinging to the vestiges of a bygone era, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that civil religion, however generic, no longer represents the nation we have become.

Maybe it’s time for the president-elect to add his own affirmation to the oath rather than keep “so help me God” as a state ritual to be intoned by the chief justice.

And rather than clergy-led prayer, maybe it’s better to have a period of silent reflection, giving all Americans an opportunity to offer thoughts or prayers according to the dictates of their consciences.

After the inauguration, of course, all who wish to do so could attend (or view on television) the prayer service at the National Cathedral, with real prayers and real sermons free and separate from any civil ceremony.

For many people of faith, state invocations of God and to-whom-it-may-concern prayers tend to squeeze the life out of authentic religious expression. Roger Williams, an early Founder and fierce advocate of religious freedom, went even further by condemning such practices as blasphemous.

That’s why some of the very people who now oppose Newdow’s lawsuit might consider rooting for it to succeed.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Charles C. Haynes

Let’s ring in the new year with some good news about our country: Despite bitter culture wars, outbreaks of nativism and pockets of intolerance, the United States begins 2009 as the boldest and most successful experiment in living with religious differences the world has ever known.

This is no small achievement in a world torn by religious hatred and sectarian violence. Christian vs. Muslim in Nigeria; Hindu vs. Buddhist in Sri Lanka; Muslim vs. Hindu in India … and the tragic list goes on.

The 20th century was plagued by the scourge of secular, totalitarian ideologies (fascism and communism). Now the 21st century is emerging as an era of political and social wars rooted in religious and ethnic differences.

In stark contrast, America – the most religiously diverse place on Earth – boasts many neighborhoods where church, temple, mosque, synagogue and other houses of worship co-exist side by side. Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans live and let worship – confining our disputes largely to wars of words or courts of law.

But now the bad news: We are not immune from the disease of religious intolerance. During the waning months of 2008, three incidents – all linked to the elections – were disturbing reminders that religious and political divisions can turn ugly and violent, even in the United States:

• During the same week in September when an anti-Muslim DVD was widely distributed in Dayton, Ohio, someone sprayed a “chemical irritant” through a window of the Islamic Society building in Dayton. The room was filled with babies and children being kept there while their parents were at prayer. No one was seriously hurt, but the incident caused panic and shock among the children, families and caregivers.

• After passage on Nov. 4 of California’s Proposition 8 (a ballot initiative banning gay marriage), at least 10 Mormon churches were vandalized and two others received suspicious white powder in the mail. Mormon institutions were targeted because church members contributed substantial time and money in support of Prop 8. Although most anti-Mormon protests were peaceful, not everyone was content to stay within the law.

• On Dec. 12, a fire caused major damage to the Wasilla Bible Church in Wasilla, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin’s home church. During the campaign, the church was subjected to considerable public scrutiny and debate. Authorities believe the fire was deliberately set. Fortunately, the people inside, including two children, escaped unharmed.

Lawless attacks on houses of worship are still blessedly rare in America. Those who use such tactics are on the fringes of society and represent a small percentage of the population. Nevertheless, when intolerance grows – especially during hard times – the volatile mix of religion and politics can fuel outbreaks of violence and hate.

That’s why the real cautionary tales are the small stories, the little-noted religious tensions in neighborhoods and workplaces that are barometers of how well we are addressing religious differences on a daily basis.

Consider the Sikh who went to a community center in North Carolina before Thanksgiving to donate to the needy. “Take off your turban,” he was told. “This is the United States.” When he explained that he was required by his faith to wear the turban, the minister in charge ordered him and his wife to leave.

Or the Muslim woman in Georgia who was arrested in December for refusing to remove her head scarf before entering a courthouse. Although state law doesn’t prohibit head coverings in court, judges have the discretion to ban them. Muslim women in Georgia and other states are often ordered to choose between upholding their faith and gaining access to the courts.

Or the Hindu man in Virginia who is being fined by the homeowners association in his neighborhood for painting a 6-foot religious design on his driveway (a symbol of welcoming to the home). Although none of his immediate neighbors object, the association demands that he paint over the design.

These three people of three different faiths have one thing in common: They are all Americans. This isn’t your parents’ or grandparents’ country anymore – the “Protestant, Catholic, Jewish” America of the 1950s. We live in a new religious America.

Our challenge is to welcome the new by ringing out the old prejudices and stereotypes. Let’s resolve in 2009 to better understand one another – maybe by visiting that mosque down the street or reaching out to that family with the unfamiliar design in the driveway.

Americans have managed to negotiate deep religious differences for more than 200 years without going for the jugular. Let’s not fail now.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

A Navitivy scene is on display Dec. 1 at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash. The display is near a sign placed at the Capitol by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, which promotes the observance of the winter solstice and is critical of religious beliefs.

Just when I thought the Christmas wars couldn’t get more ridiculous or hostile, along comes the uproar over dueling holiday displays in the rotunda of the Washington State Capitol.

First a holiday tree, then a menorah, followed by a creche – and now a “winter solstice” placard declaring all of the above to be hokum.

The red-and-green solstice sign, placed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, describes religion as “myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” Happy holidays to you, too.

The in-your-face display in Olympia proved too much for the hundreds of Washingtonians who rallied to protest the state’s decision to give the anti-religion group space alongside the Nativity.

After TV commentator Bill O’Reilly, the self-appointed defender of all things Christmas, weighed in, the brouhaha went national.

O’Reilly is outraged – outraged! He calls Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire a “weak and confused leader” who supports “political correctness gone wild.”

But truth be told, Bill, the governor has no choice under the First Amendment. Of course, the state of Washington could have kept all displays out of the rotunda. Or the state might have been able to put up some official holiday display in the Capitol – as long as the overall message wasn’t an endorsement of religion. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, some years ago the state allowed a business group to put up the “holiday tree” as part of a charity drive. Then in 2006, a rabbi asked to put up a menorah, followed by a Christian group demanding the right to put up a creche. Rather than go to court, state officials granted space to all three.

Hence the current December dilemma: If the state opens up government space to one private group to proclaim its message, it can’t turn around and prohibit others.

For its part, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which describes itself as an association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), claims it doesn’t want any holiday displays in state capitols.

“But if the state is going to permit a nativity display and create a public forum,” says a spokesman for the group, “then we want to be sure that the views of the 16 percent of the U.S. population who is not religious are also represented.”

Now other enterprising citizens want in on the holiday fun. One fellow has requested space for a “Festivus” pole, celebrating a fictional holiday created on the sitcom “Seinfeld.” Someone else wants a display honoring the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Most bizarre of all, Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. – the anti-gay group infamous for protesting at military funerals – wants to erect a sign with a ditty called “Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell” (sung to the tune of “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”). Only in America.

Overwhelmed state officials have finally declared a “moratorium” on any new displays until they can review their policy. Good luck with that in court.

Lest you think all of this silliness is a kooky West Coast phenomenon: After a private group put up a creche in the Illinois State Capitol this month, the freethinkers followed with their aforementioned winter-solstice sign. Conflict is sure to follow in Illinois and in other states foolhardy enough to open up their capitols.

If culture warriors have their way, competing holiday displays are likely to proliferate. A nationwide movement to erect Nativity scenes on government property is gaining steam – and the freethinkers, Fred Phelps and the spaghetti monster are sure to follow close behind.

I’ll confess it’s hard for me to understand why some religious groups insist on using government property to proclaim their messages, especially when creches are omnipresent in front of homes, churches and other private property. And I can’t grasp why freethinkers think they advance their cause by denigrating religious faith.

But under the First Amendment, when government space is open to one, it is open to all. Like it or not, the days of a religious monopoly in government settings are numbered.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you may recall, attempted to end the monopoly more than 200 years ago by disestablishing religion in Virginia and then pushing for “no establishment” in the Bill of Rights.

But despite legal disestablishment, the religious-freedom playing field has been far from level in America. That explains the anger of many non-believers who feel that government often treats them as second-class citizens by privileging religion.

The free-for-all in Washington may look like a circus. But it’s also a healthy reminder that religious freedom isn’t only for the religious – nor is free speech just for the polite.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Charles C. Haynes

Last time out, I addressed the fallout from the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in California. Both sides, I argued, need to rethink their strategy of harsh attacks before the clash escalates out of control.

On the anti-Prop 8 side, I singled out as “going too far” an ad depicting Mormon missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, taking their wedding rings and tearing up their marriage certificate.

On the pro-Prop 8 side, I characterized some of the ads as “scare tactics,” especially those showing elementary schoolchildren learning about homosexuality.

Readers supporting each side, however, take issue with my criticism of their position – and think I’m letting the other side off the hook.

“Have you ever had to vote to save your fundamental rights?” writes one outraged Californian. “You found the ad with Mormons behaving as criminals offensive?” Taking away marriage rights for gay people “is exactly their goal,” he argues. “I don’t have any sympathy for these Nazis.”

“I am not aware of any false, extremely exaggerated, ugly or hateful ads that Mormons produced for the Prop 8 campaign,” writes a Utah reader. “However, I am very aware of the false, bigoted, hate-mongering ads produced by the gay rights side.”

Hate, it seems, is in the eyes of the beholder.

A number of readers object to the charge by gay-rights groups that the ads about teaching same-sex marriage in public schools are full of exaggerations and lies. They point to a recent Massachusetts case involving parents who lost a court fight to opt out of stories depicting same-sex marriages in the elementary school curriculum.

“The TV ad (about children being taught gay marriage) you referenced is true,” says a Colorado reader. “Children are taught about homosexuality in public schools.”

He has a point. The Massachusetts curriculum does, in fact, include books with a few images and stories of same-sex marriages – as might be expected in a state where gay marriage is legal. Anti-Prop 8 forces in California were disingenuous, at best, when they argued that recognition of gay marriage has nothing to do with education.

Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that these ads unfairly used children to scare people into voting for Prop 8. The fact that young children may be exposed to a few stories or images of same-sex marriages does not mean that elementary schools are promoting homosexuality or encouraging children to be gay, as the tone of the ads seemed to suggest. I recognize, however, that some parents equate exposure with indoctrination.

School officials in Massachusetts argue that the aim of including images of same-sex marriages in the elementary curriculum is not to promote homosexuality or to make children gay (it doesn’t work that way), but rather to help children see families with gay parents as a normal, healthy part of the community.

Thus for readers on one side of the debate, inclusion of same-sex marriages in the curriculum is a welcome way of supporting gay parents and their children. One self-described “heterosexual married Christian” in New Jersey argues: “Encouraging homosexuals to enter stable familial relationships, obviously including marriage, is what is best for society.”

But for the other side, inclusion is a grave threat to the common good. “While tolerance is important,” writes another reader, “our deteriorating society cannot long survive if it condones and even promotes homosexuality.”

My readers, like most Americans, are bitterly divided over how marriage should be defined. Some are convinced that marriage has always had one meaning and can never be redefined. Others point out that marriage has been redefined before: Wives were once treated as property (and still are in some cultures) and interracial marriages were outlawed as unnatural and evil.

With differences this deep, we are in for a protracted fight. Fortunately, the First Amendment makes it possible to wage the war with words, giving all sides freedom to make their case openly and robustly without government interference.

Of course, there will be winners and losers – we live in a democracy. But how we debate – not only what we debate – matters.

It isn’t mandated by the First Amendment, but treating our opponents with civility and respect might enable us to live with one another when the battle is finally over.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

What shouldn't get lost in the melee, however, is that fighting hate with hate can be destructive and counter-productive.

Since Election Day, the Mormon church has been the target of demonstrations protesting the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.

Why the Mormons? Last week, gay-rights activist Dan Savage gave CNN a simple explanation: “Part of the democratic process is if you throw a punch, you’re going to have a punch thrown back.”

Fair enough. Mormon leaders should have anticipated blowback after they directed all of their California congregations to get involved in the “Yes on 8″ campaign.

Perhaps they didn’t foresee just how outsized the response would be: Mormons made up the lion’s share of volunteers and gave what the other side estimates is as much as $20 million. That’s impressive involvement in a state where 770,000 Mormons are a mere 2 percent of the population.

As a result, Mormons are taking the biggest hit from the opposition. But as protests, boycotts and blacklists targeting Mormons proliferate, it’s worth pausing to think about where this collision is headed. Are there limits to the punch and counter-punch – or is this a no-holds-barred fight, like boxing before the Queensberry rules?

Leaders on both sides are making the obligatory noises about “fighting fair,” but each accuses the other of hitting below the belt.

Prop. 8 supporters point to a television ad run in the week before Election Day that depicts Mormon missionaries barging into the home of a lesbian couple. The missionaries seize wedding rings from the women, ransack the house, find a marriage certificate and tear it in half. They leave, laughing about what rights they can take away next.

Other religious groups in the “Yes on 8″ coalition have expressed outrage over the “home invasion” ad, calling such tactics a form of religious bigotry and hate.

Courage Campaign, the anti-Prop 8 group that made the offending ad, defends attacks on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as fair game because of the church’s prominent role in what they see as discriminatory efforts to ban gay marriage in California, Arizona and other states. The real bigots, they argue, are those who have now deprived gay and lesbian Californians of a fundamental human right.

Gay-rights groups also charge that pro-Prop 8 ads showing elementary school children learning about homosexuality and warning that churches could be forced to perform gay weddings were full of exaggerations and outright lies. Although Prop 8 supporters characterized their campaign as “pro-marriage,” say gay groups, it was actually hateful and “anti-gay.”

Both sides, of course, have a First Amendment right to make these arguments and to attack one another with zeal. Mormons or members of any other religious group are free to enter the political fray and argue vigorously for what they believe. And supporters of gay rights are just as free to fight back.

What shouldn’t get lost in the melee, however, is that fighting hate with hate can be destructive and counter-productive.

Although the protests at Mormon churches have been mostly peaceful thus far, there are scattered reports of vandals defacing church buildings and protesters hurling insults at Mormons. And earlier this month, letters filled with white powder were sent to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City (which fortunately turned out to be a non-toxic substance).

Before this clash escalates further, both sides should exercise caution and reconsider their battle plans going forward.

Gay-marriage advocates not only stir up religious prejudice, but also hurt their cause with attack ads that depict Mormon missionaries as criminals.

It would help ease tensions if “No on 8″ leaders acknowledged that the “home invasion” ad went too far. A gay pastor quoted in The New York Times got it right: “We need to be our best selves,” she told protesters in San Francisco. “This is a movement based on love.”

At the same time, Mormon church leaders not only stir up anger, but also hurt their cause when they lend their support to campaigns that use scare tactics about homosexuality in elementary schools and misrepresent the religious-liberty threat to churches.

Mormon leaders repeatedly call for Mormons to show “kindness and respect” toward people on the other side of the marriage debate. Good advice, but in my view, the “Yes on 8″ campaign didn’t meet that standard.

Just who is on the side of history in the marriage debate remains to be seen. But here’s a prediction: The side that wins minds and hearts with robust but civil discourse is far more likely to prevail.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Welcome to the new America.

I’m not talking about a blue America or a red America. I’m talking about a 21st century America – a nation of many colors, cultures and faiths.

Barack Obama’s election as the first African-American president symbolizes what we have known for some time, but often fail to acknowledge: The United States has become one of the most religiously and ethnically diverse societies on Earth.

Today, for example, only half of the American people identify themselves as Protestant – a stunning shift in this historically Protestant nation. There are now more Muslim Americans than Episcopalians, the church of many of our Founders.

By mid-century, the Census Bureau tells us that we will be a “minority majority” nation in every sense of the term – a demographic milestone with far-reaching social and political implications.

That’s why a high priority for President-elect Obama isn’t only the economy or the two wars, but also the urgent need to unify Americans and develop a common vision of the common good across our differences.

That will not be easy. In the wake of the longest presidential race in history – an often bitter campaign that exposed our ideological and religious divisions – Americans are angry, partisan, and emotionally spent.

Nevertheless, at this difficult moment in our history, we have no choice but to come together. Those obligatory post-election calls by both candidates for “national unity” need to be translated into actions that transcend our racial, religious and ideological divisions.

The new president must persuade fellow Democrats to resist the winner-take-all mentality, just as John McCain must encourage Republicans to eschew guerrilla warfare. Our current challenges are too big, the stakes too high for politics as usual.

Of course, extreme voices from the left and right – especially the Internet flame-throwers – will continue to debase the debate. Incendiary rhetoric, name-calling and similar tactics will still pollute the public square, undermining efforts to find common ground.

But that may not work so well anymore. In this election cycle, negative ads, especially personal attacks, triggered a backlash among many voters. And some of the familiar culture-war bullies were relegated to the sidelines where few people paid attention.

A defining moment, for me at least, came in October, during Gen. Colin Powell’s appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” After condemning scurrilous attempts to link Obama with terrorism by accusing him of being a secret Muslim, Powell added this: “But the really right answer is, What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s No, that’s not America.”

Powell then described a photo he saw of a mother in Arlington Cemetery with her head on her son’s grave. “And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards – Purple Heart, Bronze Star – showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.

“And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American . . . . He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.”

Powell’s poignant comments were not only about the need to respect the rights of Muslim Americans, as important as that is. He was also making a larger point about what it means to be an American.

In this new America, we can no longer afford to define “American” along racial, ethnic or religious lines – a mistake we have made time and again in our history. To be an American is not about the color of your skin or where you worship. It’s about upholding guiding principles such as racial justice, equal opportunity and religious freedom that bind us together as “We the People.”

E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one – is more than our national motto: It’s an urgent challenge for the new president, and for us all.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. His e-mail address is chaynes@freedomforum.org.

Alma Powell

While Gen. Colin Powell was making political news on Oct. 19, his wife, Alma, was sounding the alarm about an issue that transcends partisan differences – and will define America’s future as much as any election.

Speaking to the annual forum of the Character Education Partnership, Alma Powell delivered a simple but profound message: Unless we act now to strengthen the character of our nation’s youth – and give them the resources to succeed – the United States will not be prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Millions tuned in to hear Gen. Powell, while only about 600 educators (and no news media) heard Mrs. Powell. Nevertheless, they were a committed, motivated 600: teachers, administrators and counselors from around the country who put character first.

Alma Powell, it should be said, wasn’t speaking as “wife of.” She’s a dynamic public servant in her own right, serving as board chair of America’s Promise Alliance, a broad coalition of businesses, education associations, faith groups and others whose current priority is to keep kids in school.

“Every 26 seconds,” Mrs. Powell told the audience, “a high school student in the United States drops out.” That’s more than a million dropouts a year – a crisis that disproportionately affects our most disadvantaged communities, perpetuates poverty, increases crime and seriously threatens America’s future prosperity and security.

At the CEP meeting, she was preaching to the choir: Schools that implement effective character education, research shows, have lower dropout rates, higher academic achievement and fewer discipline problems because they are caring, safe learning environments.

Character education, of course, is about more than keeping at-risk kids in school. It’s about making sure that every student learns what it means to be an ethical, engaged citizen in a democracy.

What does this have to do with the First Amendment? In a word, everything. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, but it can do nothing to ensure that people exercise those rights with responsibility.

James Madison, who drafted the First Amendment, said it best: “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

Fortunately, growing numbers of schools are making the connection between inculcating civic virtue and sustaining basic freedoms.

After Alma Powell spoke, teachers, administrators and students from more than 100 schools came forward to be recognized for exemplary practices in character education as part of CEP’s National Schools of Character initiative.

As someone worried about the health of the First Amendment, I found it encouraging to hear how many award-winning schools emphasize giving students a meaningful voice in their education.

For example, at Valley Park Middle School in Missouri, one of 10 schools honored at the conference as a 2008 “national school of character,” every class creates its own set of rules, and every student has the opportunity to speak at class meetings.

Students resolve conflicts through peer mediation and discuss ethical issues in classes across the curriculum.

Valley Park has discovered what really works in schools. Five years ago, the school had many of the same academic and discipline challenges most schools face, and students lacked a sense of belonging and autonomy.

Today, character education has transformed the entire school culture: Suspensions are way down, grades are up, and all members of the school community – students, staff, and parents – now feel part of a caring family. (For a full description of this and the other 2008 winners, visit www.character.org.)

Math and reading are important. But even more important is what kinds of human beings are doing the math and reading the books.

No matter who wins on Nov. 4, the extraordinary challenges we face – wars, recession, climate change, poverty – will test our nation’s character in ways unprecedented in our history. That’s why we must move creating “schools of character” to the top of the education reform agenda.

Madison was right. The character of a nation is determined by the character of its people.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.