Kersten: Keep church and state separate, at least when the “church” is Islamic

A couple of kettles clanging together Andy -

I don’t have any personal experience with Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, but I have quite a bit of first-hand knowledge of Al-Amal, which is mentioned in the Kersten article. I’ve written about the school in the Pioneer Press – I regard it as an outstanding example of how religion ought to be dealt with in education — private or public charters.

The purpose of Al-Amal is to integrate its students into American society without loss of their Islamic identity. The school has students from different ethnic backgrounds speaking some 20 different dialects from countries ranging from monarchies, to Islamic theocracies, to democracies. Both Shiite and Sunni students attend Al-Amal.

Students use the same American history textbooks as my kids used, study American government and yes, George Washington is the father of their country. Although evolution is contrary to fundamental Islamic teaching, it is part of the science curriculum. As one administrator told me, “We cannot expect our people to be leaders if they do not understand current scientific thought.”

Students also study their Islamic heritage; however, the religious curriculum they follow was written by American-Muslims, which emphasizes the commonalities as well as contrasts with Western thought.

I also was an early participant with the board of Seven Hills Classical Academy, which Kersten wrote about in the column you reference.

Seven Hills uses the Core Knowledge curriculum popularized by J.D. Hirsch, which emphasizes understanding Western Culture as a foundation for learning about other cultures. If you want to contrast the Core Knowledge approach with  “multiculturalism,” the Core Knowledge approach prepares students to take their place in the world and maintain their identity – much like the goal Al-Amal has for its students. Multiculturalism, in effect, desires to do away with cultural distinctions.

Seven Hills is housed in a 1960s era elementary school that is owned and connected to a Christian church in Bloomington. Ironically, when the board was negotiating for the space, a concern of the church was that the Core Knowledge curriculum included evolution and the big bang theory in science studies.

The point is, Andy, simply slapping Kersten upside the head doesn’t do much to further discussion and implying that classical academies are simply shells for pushing Christianity and are somehow misusing public education funds is somewhat disingenuous. What’s the objective here? Is to provide kids with an education that adopts them to live in the world they will find themselves in, or it to meet some government standard? Your piece is not the pot calling the kettle black – your piece and Kersten’s are simply a couple of kettles clanging together.

The point “The point is, Andy, simply slapping Kersten upside the head doesn’t do much to further discussion and implying that classical academies are simply shells for pushing Christianity and are somehow misusing public education funds is somewhat disingenuous.”

The point is, Kersten takes a school with a majority Muslim population and accuses them of doing something improper — taking state funds to promote religion. She only provides circumstantial evidence.

She conveniently avoids very, very similar circumstances surrounding schools she promotes — simply because they are Christian, a religion of which she is a member.

I think both schools should take pains to remove any hint of religious-based education if they are taking my money.

I also think that Kersten wrote the piece because she doesn’t like Islam, not because she is concerned about the mixing of religion and my tax dollars.

I’ve written plenty in opposition to any religion using taxpayer money to further it’s goals. Kersten has not. You can call me a kettle if you like, but my position has been consistent, pretty much forever; Kersten’s has not.

That’s the point.

can’t believe it, but I slightly agree with Kersten on this I have been working at a Friends of Ascension charter school for a short time and have seen zero evidence of christianity as part of the school day or curriculum. The school has  worked to avoid even any appearance of connections to the church.
I read the Kerstan column this morning and thought best case would be for TIZA to be a parochial school, because they are clearly on the line, if not crossing it, with some of their programming. However, given the cost of private school and the incomes of immigrant families, this is not a workable solution. It does raise questions for me though, about how a school like TIZA can  teach culture w/o espousing religion, which is very blurred with Islam. I think Kerstan’s questions are fair.
My own religious views are that of  a liberal unitarian, with interest and respect for all world religions.

Your money? “I think both schools should take pains to remove any hint of religious-based education if they are taking my money.”

I didn’t think the left thought of tax dollars as “your money.” I hope that thinking of tax dollars as taxpayer money is a view of yours that will remain consistent.

“but my position has been consistent, pretty much forever; Kersten’s has not.”

Depends on what the meaning of the word “consistent” is. I believe you wrote a piece about Minnesota having a moral tax code. In it you used a study, based on scripture, to denigrate the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Majority. But to do that, don’t you have to accept the study premise that scripture is a valid basis on which to base government policy? If not, then you should have criticized the study even if it supported your desired outcome.

And if you do support the scriptures as a valid basis of government policy, then I suggest you remove any hint of scripture-based moral obligation to finance welfare programs as long as you are taking my money to finance those programs. (That is sarcasm, btw, not conservative philosophy).

In the end, however, I’m guessing your purpose in the former article was just to take the easy shot at MFC and not really advance a progressive agenda — same as it is here.

A couple of kettles clanging together Andy -

I don't have any personal experience with Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, but I have quite a bit of first-hand knowledge of Al-Amal, which is mentioned in the Kersten article. I've written about the school in the Pioneer Press – I regard it as an outstanding example of how religion ought to be dealt with in education — private or public charters.

The purpose of Al-Amal is to integrate its students into American society without loss of their Islamic identity. The school has students from different ethnic backgrounds speaking some 20 different dialects from countries ranging from monarchies, to Islamic theocracies, to democracies. Both Shiite and Sunni students attend Al-Amal.

Students use the same American history textbooks as my kids used, study American government and yes, George Washington is the father of their country. Although evolution is contrary to fundamental Islamic teaching, it is part of the science curriculum. As one administrator told me, “We cannot expect our people to be leaders if they do not understand current scientific thought.”

Students also study their Islamic heritage; however, the religious curriculum they follow was written by American-Muslims, which emphasizes the commonalities as well as contrasts with Western thought.

I also was an early participant with the board of Seven Hills Classical Academy, which Kersten wrote about in the column you reference.

Seven Hills uses the Core Knowledge curriculum popularized by J.D. Hirsch, which emphasizes understanding Western Culture as a foundation for learning about other cultures. If you want to contrast the Core Knowledge approach with  “multiculturalism,” the Core Knowledge approach prepares students to take their place in the world and maintain their identity – much like the goal Al-Amal has for its students. Multiculturalism, in effect, desires to do away with cultural distinctions.

Seven Hills is housed in a 1960s era elementary school that is owned and connected to a Christian church in Bloomington. Ironically, when the board was negotiating for the space, a concern of the church was that the Core Knowledge curriculum included evolution and the big bang theory in science studies.

The point is, Andy, simply slapping Kersten upside the head doesn't do much to further discussion and implying that classical academies are simply shells for pushing Christianity and are somehow misusing public education funds is somewhat disingenuous. What's the objective here? Is to provide kids with an education that adopts them to live in the world they will find themselves in, or it to meet some government standard? Your piece is not the pot calling the kettle black – your piece and Kersten's are simply a couple of kettles clanging together.

The point “The point is, Andy, simply slapping Kersten upside the head doesn't do much to further discussion and implying that classical academies are simply shells for pushing Christianity and are somehow misusing public education funds is somewhat disingenuous.”

The point is, Kersten takes a school with a majority Muslim population and accuses them of doing something improper — taking state funds to promote religion. She only provides circumstantial evidence.

She conveniently avoids very, very similar circumstances surrounding schools she promotes — simply because they are Christian, a religion of which she is a member.

I think both schools should take pains to remove any hint of religious-based education if they are taking my money.

I also think that Kersten wrote the piece because she doesn't like Islam, not because she is concerned about the mixing of religion and my tax dollars.

I've written plenty in opposition to any religion using taxpayer money to further it's goals. Kersten has not. You can call me a kettle if you like, but my position has been consistent, pretty much forever; Kersten's has not.

That's the point.

can't believe it, but I slightly agree with Kersten on this I have been working at a Friends of Ascension charter school for a short time and have seen zero evidence of christianity as part of the school day or curriculum. The school has  worked to avoid even any appearance of connections to the church.

I read the Kerstan column this morning and thought best case would be for TIZA to be a parochial school, because they are clearly on the line, if not crossing it, with some of their programming. However, given the cost of private school and the incomes of immigrant families, this is not a workable solution. It does raise questions for me though, about how a school like TIZA can  teach culture w/o espousing religion, which is very blurred with Islam. I think Kerstan's questions are fair.

My own religious views are that of  a liberal unitarian, with interest and respect for all world religions.

Your money? “I think both schools should take pains to remove any hint of religious-based education if they are taking my money.”

I didn't think the left thought of tax dollars as “your money.” I hope that thinking of tax dollars as taxpayer money is a view of yours that will remain consistent.

“but my position has been consistent, pretty much forever; Kersten's has not.”

Depends on what the meaning of the word “consistent” is. I believe you wrote a piece about Minnesota having a moral tax code. In it you used a study, based on scripture, to denigrate the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Majority. But to do that, don't you have to accept the study premise that scripture is a valid basis on which to base government policy? If not, then you should have criticized the study even if it supported your desired outcome.

And if you do support the scriptures as a valid basis of government policy, then I suggest you remove any hint of scripture-based moral obligation to finance welfare programs as long as you are taking my money to finance those programs. (That is sarcasm, btw, not conservative philosophy).

In the end, however, I'm guessing your purpose in the former article was just to take the easy shot at MFC and not really advance a progressive agenda — same as it is here.