Faith, Freedom, and Friction: Navigating Controversy in Democracy

In government, values of what is right and wrong shape decision making. But what happens when those values do not align? Oftentimes, controversy comes into play, especially when religion is cited at the forefront of ethics in decision making. Religion can often be the cause that shapes many peoples’ ethics and values, but in a country that does not have an official religion, how do those making decisions choose what is best for all people, regardless of religiosity? When personal bias and religion find their way into those in positions of authority in the United States, the effects are felt much beyond the boundaries within specific belief systems. Written in the Constitution is the ideal of secularism which seeks to guarantee equality and justice for every person, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. But when legislative agendas are shaped by personal prejudices and religious ideologies, the result is that legislation frequently represents the ideals of a small group of people rather than the diverse fabric of American society. For people who do not follow the prevalent religious or ethical norms, this leads to systemic injustice because their rights and freedoms are frequently ignored or marginalized in favor of the popular narrative. Although religion in government can lead to these disastrous effects, the controversy that arises from such situations plays a vital role in fostering the growth of a healthy democracy in the United States. It serves as a catalyst for public engagement, encouraging citizens to critically examine issues and participate in the democratic process. Through contentious debates and disagreements, diverse perspectives are brought to the forefront, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues. Moreover, controversy challenges the status quo and prompts policymakers to reevaluate their decisions in light of public opinion and ethical considerations. In Robert Asen’s Democracy, Deliberation, and Education, he illustrates how the debate between religious and personal values intertwines with the quest for the greater good, engaging the concept of democracy as individuals come together to collectively determine the optimal course of action in accordance with the law.

I will be examining a case of religiosity and public debate in the sphere of education that is outlined in Robert Asen’s book "Democracy, Deliberation, and Education" with the case of the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) club being instituted in a religious and conservative school district. In a small conservative town in Wisconsin in the West Bend school district, controversy arises when the religious conservative school board votes against the installation of the club of the GSA at a local school, citing religious and moral values as the reason as to why it would not be appropriate at the school. One Christian board member, Weigand, cites that his opposition is fueled by his religious background, saying “endors[ing] the GSA club would be asking me to deny the values of my faith and violates my religious freedom” (Chapter 2). Weigand and many of the other dissenters of approving this club feel it does violate their religion and personal values, citing that teaching minors about sinful sex with efforts that lobby against a holy heterosexual lifestyle corrupts the youth. As many in the community come to the board to present whether or not they agree with the board’s decision, it is shown that personal values can fluctuate from person to person. Even those in the same religion can interpret their holy text differently. For instance, comparing Weigand’s comments to the mother of a child in the West Bend GSA, she states that the club seems to come from a place of a “call to love your neighbor as yourself, to justice, to be a voice to those who needed a voice” (Chapter 2). This quote rings with the message of the second commandment in the Bible, which calls to love your neighbor as yourself.

One board member even compares the approval of this club would be like approving a Nazi club at the school. Although I feel that there should be an investigation into that board member’s mental state and their education on the atrocities the Nazis did versus gay people wanting to be free to love whoever they wish, this example shows how ethics and values truly do fluctuate per person. This controversial statement has also wrought a conversation about morals and the depths of which they reach within this issue. What, then, would be the most fair measure on whether or not to approve this club, if not the morals of an obviously very unbiased and very well educated individual on the school board? The defining characteristic of this specific instance is this: this GSA club did its homework; they fulfilled the requirements needed to institute a club in the district. Dan Patricus, one of the attorneys representing the GSA, argued that the GSA “may be against your personal ideology, it may be against the personal ideology of the folks you’re going to hear today, but, at the end of the day, it’s not about any of those things, it’s about one thing–it’s about the law. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant” (Chapter 2). Assuming that the law is fair, all should be held to it – straight, gay, bisexual, transgender, or whomever else. The law governs all, even and especially when those who disagree with it because of personal or religious reasons try to ignore it.

In my own educational journey, I have spoken with a few teachers who teach certain concepts despite the fact that teaching them may go against their ideological view. I attended a Catholic school from Kindergarten through 8th Grade, and in my studies, I had both biology and

religion classes. In religion class, we were taught that we were all Created in God’s image, thus originating from the story of Adam and Eve. In biology, we learned about the theory of evolution. Despite these being two contradictory stories as to how human beings came to be, we learned them. And my class, being composed of 28 rambunctious individuals who enjoy provoking controversy, asked our teacher as to how she can teach the theory of evolution if, in another class, she has taught us that we are Created in God’s loving image. Firstly, she answered that this education is mandated by the state, and thus, despite any ideological differences, she must comply with it. She also stated that per the archdiocese (the governing body of Catholic schools in the area), she is required to teach the theory of Creationism. However, she stated her personal view: that she does believe that God created us, but he did it by creating the plan of evolution. This is a great example of navigating power with religion and personal values in mind. She had power over us, being our teacher, and had control as to what she could teach us. She chose to uphold what is expected of her by teaching both theories, regardless of what she believed.

The sharing of both of these theories plus my teacher’s own thoughts started a conversation among us students and what we believe in. Although our thoughts were rudimentary, being as we were in the 6th Grade, most of us agreed both that the way she taught these concepts was fair and that her personal beliefs made sense. Although we were not assessed on our teacher’s belief, many of us continued to hold onto that notion as we learned more in depth about scientific concepts as our educational and religious journeys continued to evolve. These conversations were incredibly important as it got us thinking about accepting information, where it comes from, and our personal opinions with it and how to navigate it; these concepts gave us indispensable tools of democracy.

Great controversy brings great discourse. People are passionate about their stances, especially when it comes to morality and religion. In America, navigating the law and one’s personal belief systems can be tricky, as both someone’s beliefs and the law can be meant to decide on what is most just for all. In Chapter 2, Calvin Troup states that “churches and religious people are so deeply involved in political life” because there is such room for deliberation when involving ethics. This essay is not to say that religion has no place in debates, but, rather, it helps to foster them and has great importance in a diverse society. In addressing religion and its place and usefulness in ethical debates, Dave Tell states that we should view “religious discourse as secular discourse: it should be evaluated in terms of what it proposes” (Chapter 2).

As the battle between law and religion comes to the forefront of public controversy, everyone who has an opinion is welcome to contribute and participate in the democracy of decision making. The controversy with the GSA club and within the arguments of belief in creationism and evolution show valuable snippets in the importance of American democracy: disagreements bring the issue to the forefront of peoples’ minds, making everyone think and rethink their stance and why they have it. In Democracy, Deliberation and Education, Asen cites Chantel Mouffe, stating that conflict in the public sphere “keep the democratic contestation alive” (Chapter 2). Even the title of the book alludes to how interconnected and important the three principles are. I think that Americans can benefit from the way my teacher handled the discourse of the intersections between law, religion, and personal belief: with respect for the law, an ability to have one’s own beliefs, and the cultivation of democracy and discourse around the issue.