Archives for category: Religion

Betsy DeVos toured two Orthodox Jewish schools on her first official visit to New York City. Having attended religious schools herself, she supports vouchers for religious education.

Orthodox yeshivas have been in the news lately because critics charge they spend disproportionate time teaching Yiddish and religious studies and ignoring English, math, and science.

DeVos demonstrated is her contempt for any separation between church and state. There is no other way to interpret an official visit by the U.S. Secretary of Education to two religious schools while ignoring the city’s public schools.

The leading critic of yeshiva education, Naftuli Moster, is a graduate of one of them. He protested DeVos’ visit, which undercut his efforts to force the state and city to require at least some English-language instruction at yeshivas.

Critics said the Manhattan girls’ school — which costs roughly $20,000 a year — was not representative of less-polished yeshivas, 39 of which are being probed for inadequate curriculums.

Naftuli Moster, a longtime detractor of ultra-religious yeshivas, protested at DeVos’s visit Tuesday. The activist praised the Upper East Side school for its curricular balance — but said Zwiebel was purposefully presenting DeVos with an outlier to mask the true scope of the problem.

“He brings Betsy DeVos to this high-performing school,” Moster said. “But Agudath Israel is not bringing Betsy DeVos or other government officials to the yeshivas that really need a ton of improvement.”

Moster said 9 out of 10 Hasidic boys’ high schools offer no secular education at all, noting that Agudath Israel lobbyists aligned with state Sen. Simcha Felder to relax scrutiny of yeshiva teachings.

Smiling students massed at the school’s windows and waved goodbye to DeVos on Tuesday as she made a beeline for an awaiting SUV.

Moster was born in Brooklyn, one of 17 children, and Yiddish was his first language. He attended an Orthodox yeshiva that frowned upon English, mathematics, and science. He has become one of the most prominent critics of the religious education he received and that Secretary DeVos wants taxpayers to fund. He founded a group called YAFFED, Young Advocates for Fair Education, to press the state to require yeshivas to provide a balanced curriculum that includes secular studies.

Moster criticized the recently concluded state budget, which relaxes state oversight of yeshivas and allows them to skip secular instruction. Because the State Senate is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the balance of power is held by one man, Simcha Felder, who represents the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, who do not want English taught in their private schools.

Last month, another graduate of Yeshiva education, Shulem Deen, wrote a powerful critique in the New York Times of Orthodox schools that refused to teach English, mathematics, or science. It was titled “Why is New York Condoning Illiteracy?”

Deen wrote:

“I was raised in New York’s Hasidic community and educated in its schools. At my yeshiva elementary school, I received robust instruction in Talmudic discourse and Jewish religious law, but not a word about history, geography, science, literature, art or most other subjects required by New York State law. I received rudimentary instruction in English and arithmetic — an afterthought after a long day of religious studies — but by high school, secular studies were dispensed with altogether.

“The language of instruction was, for the most part, Yiddish. English, our teachers would remind us, was profane.

“During my senior year of high school, a common sight in our study hall was of students learning to sign their names in English, practicing for their marriage license. For many, it was the first time writing their names in anything but Yiddish or Hebrew.

“When I was in my 20s, already a father of three, I had no marketable skills, despite 18 years of schooling. I could rely only on an ill-paid position as a teacher of religious studies at the local boys’ yeshiva, which required no special training or certification. As our family grew steadily — birth control, or even basic sexual education, wasn’t part of the curriculum — my then-wife and I struggled, even with food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing vouchers, which are officially factored into the budgets of many of New York’s Hasidic families.

“I remember feeling both shame and anger. Shame for being unable to provide for those who relied on me. Anger at those responsible for educating me who had failed me so colossally….

“This experience — of lacking the most basic knowledge — is one I have come to know well. Ten years ago, at age 33, I left the Hasidic community and sought to make my way in the secular world. At 35, I got my G.E.D., but I never made it to college, relying instead on self-study to fill in my educational gaps. I still live with my educational handicaps.

“I now have two sons, ages 16 and 18. I do not have custody of them — I lost it when I left the Hasidic world, and so I have no control over their education. Today, they cannot speak, read or write in English past a second-grade level. (As for my three daughters, their English skills are fine. Girls, not obligated with Torah study, generally receive a decent secular education.)

“Like me, my sons will be expected to marry young and raise large families. They too will receive no guidance on how to provide for them and will be forced into low-wage jobs and rely heavily on government support.

“They are not alone. Across the state, there are dozens of Hasidic yeshivas, with tens of thousands of students — nearly 60,000 in New York City alone — whose education is being atrociously neglected. These schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding, through federal programs like Title I and Head Start and state programs like Academic Intervention Services and universal pre-K. For New York City’s yeshivas, $120 million comes from the state-funded, city-run Child Care and Development Block Grant subsidy program: nearly a quarter of the allocation to the entire city….

“According to New York State law, nonpublic schools are required to offer a curriculum that is “substantially equivalent” to that of public schools. But when it comes to Hasidic yeshivas, this law has gone unenforced for decades. The result is a community crippled by poverty and a systemic reliance on government funding for virtually all aspects of life…

“According to a report by Yaffed, or Young Advocates for Fair Education, an organization that advocates for improved general studies in Hasidic yeshivas, an estimated 59 percent of Hasidic households are poor or near-poor. According to United States Census figures, the all-Hasidic village of Kiryas Joel, an hour north of New York City, is the poorest in the country, with median family income less than $18,000.”

Betsy DeVos came to New York City to visit yeshivas because she believes that the federal government should pay for vouchers for religious schools. She believes that all of us should pay the cost of schools that don’t teach English, science, or math. These are schools far out of the mainstream. Orthodox Jews are free to attend them, but the public should not be expected to subsidize them.

 

Shulem Deen was raised in an Orthodox home. He wrote an opinion article in the New York Times today about the low quality of education he received in religious schools.

He writes:

”Last Friday, as observant Jews hurried with last-minute preparations for Passover, one Orthodox Jew was in Albany, holding up the New York State budget. He was insisting that this roughly $168 billion package include a special provision that would allow religious schools to meet the state’s educational requirements by using their long hours of religious instruction.

“In recent years, education activists, among them former Hasidic yeshiva graduates, have pushed aggressively to bring the yeshivas into compliance with the state’s education laws. Simcha Felder, the state senator from Brooklyn who represents the heavily ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods of Borough Park and Midwood, was on a mission to get legal permission for the state to turn a blind eye to the near-absence of secular instruction in many yeshivas. The upshot? Tens of thousands of children would continue to graduate without the most basic skills.

“I know about the cost. I was one of those kids.

“I was raised in New York’s Hasidic community and educated in its schools. At my yeshiva elementary school, I received robust instruction in Talmudic discourse and Jewish religious law, but not a word about history, geography, science, literature, art or most other subjects required by New York State law. I received rudimentary instruction in English and arithmetic — an afterthought after a long day of religious studies — but by high school, secular studies were dispensed with altogether.

“The language of instruction was, for the most part, Yiddish. English, our teachers would remind us, was profane…

”When I was in my 20s, already a father of three, I had no marketable skills, despite 18 years of schooling. I could rely only on an ill-paid position as a teacher of religious studies at the local boys’ yeshiva, which required no special training or certification. As our family grew steadily — birth control, or even basic sexual education, wasn’t part of the curriculum — my wife and I struggled, even with food stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing vouchers, which are officially factored into the budgets of many of New York’s Hasidic families….

”I now have two sons, ages 16 and 18. I do not have custody of them — I lost it when I left the Hasidic world, and so I have no control over their education. Today, they cannot speak, read or write in English past a second-grade level. (As for my three daughters, their English skills are fine. Girls, not obligated with Torah study, generally receive a decent secular education.)

“Like me, my sons will be expected to marry young and raise large families. They too will receive no guidance on how to provide for them and will be forced into low-wage jobs and rely heavily on government support.

“They are not alone. Across the state, there are dozens of Hasidic yeshivas, with tens of thousands of students — nearly 60,000 in New York City alone — whose education is being atrociously neglected. These schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding, through federal programs like Title I and Head Start and state programs like Academic Intervention Services and universal pre-K. For New York City’s yeshivas, $120 million comes from the state-funded, city-run Child Care and Development Block Grant subsidy program: nearly a quarter of the allocation to the entire city.”

These are the schools to which Betsy DeVos would supply vouchers. What a shame. The children deserve better education.

 

New York State has been negligent in protecting the right to an adequate education in Yeshivas. The state has a large, vibrant, and politically powerful Orthodox Jewish community.

If you care about a better education for all students, and you live in New York City, try to attend the press conference on April 5.

It is sponsored by Young Advocates for Fair Education (YAFFED)

April 5 Press Conference to Discuss how NY has Betrayed Its Values to Please A Bully and Next Steps in Fight to Protect the Rights of Orthodox Children

For immediate release: New York, NY (4/2/18)
Contact: Naftuli Moster, Exec. Director, naftuli@yaffed.org

A press conference will be held in front of City Hall to protest how in the NY State budget deal, elected officials rolled back the protection of children’s right to an adequate education.

When: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1pm

Where: The steps of City Hall in lower Manhattan

Who: Members of Yaffed, along with former Yeshiva students and invited elected officials

Why: A new law passed as part of the 2018 NY state budget was crafted specifically to affect only Hasidic and Orthodox Jewish children. It seeks to weaken the NY State Education Department’s ability to provide sufficient oversight to ensure that these children receive an adequate education.

This law was passed as result of the efforts of Simcha Felder, a State Senator from Brooklyn who alone held up the state budget in order to insert language intended to deprive students of their right to a basic education that will prepare them for good-paying jobs and success in life.

New York State law requires non-public schools to provide an education that is “at least substantially equivalent” to that of public schools, so that no student is left in ignorance. The law requires non-public schools to provide instruction in “arithmetic, reading, spelling, writing, the English language, geography, United States history, civics, hygiene, physical training, the history of New York state and science.”

But this law has not been enforced for decades, by either the state or the city. The Mayor and the NYC Department of Education has delayed taking any action for over two and a half years, even after they had promised to do so repeatedly. The NY Commissioner of Education was in the process of drafting new guidelines to enforce the law, which apparently prompted Sen. Felder’s actions to attempt to exempt Yeshivas from meeting any educational standards. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of children are not receiving the basic education to which they are entitled.

At the press conference, advocates from Yaffed, former Yeshiva students and elected officials will speak out against extremists who are strong-arming our government to block sensible education policies, and. will discuss next steps in the fight to protect the human rights of all children to be adequately educated.

For more information on Yaffed’s five-year campaign to achieve a better education for ultra-Orthodox children, see http://www.yaffed.org

 

 

All of us have a stake in preserving the religious freedom that is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Whatever our religion or lack thereof, we are all protected by the State keeping its distance from religion. The Founding Fathers knew their history, and they knew that Europe had been torn apart by endless wars between religious sects. They sought to create a nation where people of differing religious beliefs could live in harmony, none dominating the others. For that reason, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. Religious minorities have flourished (for the most part) because of the protection afforded by separation of church and state.

But now this principle is threatened by a new and powerful ideology of dominionism. This is the tie that binds the evangelicals. 

Although this article focuses on Texas, it has clear national implications. Read it and think “DeVos,” “Trump.” Even devout Christians should fear these influential leaders’ refusal to separate church and state.

“Though it’s seldom mentioned by name, it’s one of the major forces in Texas politics today: dominion theology, or dominionism. What began as a fringe evangelical sect in the 1970s has seen its influence mushroom — so much so that sociologist Sara Diamond has called dominionism “the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right.” (Italics hers.) That’s especially true here in Texas, where dominionist beliefs have, over the last decade, become part and parcel of right-wing politics at the highest levels of government.

“So, what is it? Dominionism fundamentally opposes America’s venerable tradition of church-state separation — in fact, dominionists deny the Founders ever intended that separation in the first place. According to Frederick Clarkson, senior fellow for religious liberty at the non-profit social justice think tank Political Research Associates, dominionists believe that Christians “have a biblical mandate to control all earthly institutions — including government — until the second coming of Jesus.” And that should worry all Texans — Christians and non-Christians alike.

“Dominionism comes in “soft” and “hard” varieties. “Hard” dominionism (sometimes called Christian Reconstructionism), as Clarkson describes it, explicitly seeks to replace secular government, and the U.S. Constitution, with a system based on Old Testament law.

“The father of hard dominionism, the late Presbyterian theologian R.J. Rushdoony, called for his followers to “take back government … and put it in the hands of Christians.”

“Rushdoony’s legacy has been carried on by his son-in-law, Tyler-based economist Gary North, an unapologetic theocrat who in 1982 called for Christians to “get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

Dominionists are so eager to win control that they are willing to use the deeply immoral Trump as their instrument.

 

 

 

 

Charles Foster Johnson, leader of Pastors for Texas Children, explains why he opposes vouchers and how he is organizing like-minded faith leaders in Indiana and other states.

He believes in separation of church and state, a basic article of religious freedom.

He doesn’t want his tax dollars supporting religious faith he does not share, as he does not want the government subsidizing his own faith. That’s the reason for separation of church and state.

We often hear that the word “education” is not included in the U.S. Constitution. That is true, but it does not mean that the Founding Fathers were indifferent to the importance of education. The U.S. Constitution was written and signed in 1787. Before the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Congress passed Ordinances that expressed their commitment to the importance of public schools.

Congress enacted the Land Ordinance of 1785 to show how the new lands in the western territories should be settled. This ordinance laid out new townships into 36 sections. Section 16, in the center, was to be set aside in every township in the new Western Territory for the maintenance of public schools. (“There shall be reserved the lot No. 16, of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township.”) The committee that wrote the Land Ordinance included Thomas Jefferson of (Virginia), Hugh Williamson (North Carolina), David Howell (Rhode Island), Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts) and Jacob Read (South Carolina).

Two years later came the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance provided land in the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley regions for settlement. (This region eventually broke into five states: Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Illinois [and a part of Minnesota]).

Of particular interest is Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, which reads in part:

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

These two ordinances were written by the Founding Fathers and the earliest Congresses, preceding the adoption of the Constitution. In addition to their central purpose, to lay out the rules for settlement, they were meant to encourage the development and proliferation of public schools in every township in every new state. The ordinances also prohibited the spread of slavery into the new territory and the new states after 1800.

While the Founding Fathers had high regard for religion, they did not want government to establish any religion. They incorporated this view into the First Amendment, which was part of the ten amendments included in the Bill of Rights, adopted on December 15, 1791. Responsility for the development and maintenance of public schools was left to the states, as is implicit in the Tenth Amendment.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the history of religious warfare that had divided Europe for centuries and plunged the continent into chaos again and again. They wanted this new democracy to be a place of religious freedom, where each person could live in accord with his conscience without the interference or the support of government. In a land of many different forms of Christianity, as well as Judaism, the Founders wanted vigorous and successful public schools that neither favored nor opposed any religion.

It is ironic that four of the five states created under the terms of the Northwest Ordinance–Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin–have chosen to disregard the clearly stated wishes of our Founding Fathers. The Northwest Ordinance did not set aside a section for religious schools or private schools. Section 16 in every town was for public schools.

 

Charles Foster Johnson is a fiery minister who has made it his mission to protect the millions of children who attend public schools and to block the billionaires pushing vouchers.

You gotta love this fearless man!

“Quoting Bible verses and calling the school vouchers propos​al ​by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and other lawmakers “sinful,”​ Fort Worth minister Charlie​ Johnson has been driving ​feverishly ​around the state before the March 6 primary.

“At rallies and impromptu meetings arranged by friendly school superintendents with local ministers, the longtime Southern Baptist preacher delivers a fiery message​ on behalf of public schools. His get-out-the-vote crusade has irritated GOP state leaders and staunchly conservative activists who favor using tax dollars ​to help parents of children enrolled in public schools pay to attend private schools.

“Johnson, pastor of the small, interracial Bread Fellowship in Fort Worth, does not mince words. Christians have an obligation to embrace public schools as a social good, especially for poor children, he says.

“As he said in a sharp exchange with a leading House voucher proponent at a legislative hearing just over a year ago, “You have the right to home-school your children. You have the right to ‘private school’ your children. You don’t have the right to ask the people of Texas to pay for it.”

 

One of the very contentious decisions before the U.S. Supreme Court is the appeal of a baker in Colorado, who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The couple sued, and said that the baker had violated Colorado law, which said it was wrong for a business or place of public accommodation to refuse service on grounds of sexual orientation (or race or gender or other of the usual reasons for discrimination). The baker contended that his cakes were artistic expressions, and he did not wish to sell one to this couple, based on his religious freedom rights.

Here are some interesting commentaries on this case, which was recently argued, and on which the Court will rule later.

This one by John Gehring appeared in the Catholic magazine Commonweal and represents the views of religious groups, who disagree with the baker.

Now that marriage equality has won in the courts and in the culture (even a majority of Republicans under the age of forty support same-sex marriage), conservative Christian activists are using new tactics to chip away at LGBT rights. By making a First Amendment appeal, lawyers for Phillips recognize that such an approach could have more salience and be more persuasive than a strict religious-liberty argument. David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union, a co-counsel in the case, deconstructed the free-expression argument in the New York Review of Books this month. “Likening its cakes to the art of Jackson Pollock and Piet Mondrian, Masterpiece Cakeshop claims that they deserve protection as free speech no less than Pollock’s canvases,” Cole writes. “But whether the cakes are artistic is beside the point. As an individual artist, Pollock would not have been subject to a public accommodations law and could have chosen his customers. But if he had opened a commercial art studio to the public, he, too, would have been barred from refusing to sell a painting because a customer was black, female, disabled, or gay.” Cathleen Kaveny, a Boston College professor and Commonweal columnist, thinks there are compelling First Amendment arguments in the case, but worries about an overly broad interpretation of the Court’s eventual ruling. “Every bakery is not a Masterpiece Cakeshop,” she said. “Not everyone is asking for a unique wedding cake to exemplify their soul. The distinguishing features of this case really limit its application. I worry a ruling for Masterpiece would be read as accommodating anyone who is engaged in creative work. But there is a big difference between a couture shop that creates the perfect wedding dress or a cake that incorporates the designer’s artistic vision and a boutique selling off the rack. David’s Bridal isn’t Vera Wang.”

“These debates are not academic. Despite the seismic cultural shift in support for same-sex marriage over the last decade, LGBT people still face substantial discrimination. As shared in the amicus brief they filed, Lambda Legal detailed more than one thousand incidents of LGBT people being denied service in the United States. This demonstrates “an ugly truth,” according to the brief. “With disturbing frequency, LGBT people are confronted by ‘we don’t serve your kind’ refusals and other unequal treatment in a wide range of public accommodations contexts.” Only nineteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws specifically protecting LGBT people in public accommodations.

“As a Catholic with a platform as a writer, I take seriously the public demands of faith. From the abolition of slavery to the civil-rights movement to the resurgence of progressive faith activism in the Trump-era, religion has been and will continue to be a part of the civic fabric of our nation. Religious Americans on the right also recognize that their faith comes with public responsibilities, and progressive people of faith should not blithely dismiss their sincere convictions. But respecting the sincerity of a conviction from a faithful fellow citizen and codifying that conviction into a law governing a diverse society are two different things. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic, noted in a 1990 case, laws of general applicability “could not function” if they were subject to nearly unlimited religious exemptions. Quoting from an 1878 decision, Scalia warned that such exemptions would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

“Pope Francis describes religious liberty as “one of America’s most precious possessions.” We don’t honor religious liberty or the radical inclusivity of Christ by telling people made in the image of God that their love and commitment are not worth a cake.”

David Cole of the ACLU, a co-counsel in the case, wrote in the New York Review of Books:

It is one of the most talked-about cases of the term, in part because it’s so easy to conjure hypothetical variations: What if the cake includes the message “God bless this union”? What if a wedding photographer, who has to be present at the ceremony in order to provide her services, objects to same-sex marriage? Should bakeries or photographers be permitted to refuse their services to an interracial or interfaith couple? Could a bakery refuse to make a birthday cake for a black family because its owner objects to celebrating black lives?…

“The Trump administration has filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the bakery, the first time in history that the solicitor general has supported a constitutional exemption from an antidiscrimination law. One of the Justice Department’s principal responsibilities is to enforce public accommodations and antidiscrimination laws, so it is generally skeptical of arguments for allowing citizens to evade their strictures. But not this administration, at least not when what’s at issue is a religious objection to selling a cake to a same-sex couple…

“Masterpiece Cakeshop’s objection rests on its owner’s Christian beliefs. And its complaint is ultimately a desire not to be associated with a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration; it objected to selling Craig and Mullins even a nondescript cake. But because the Supreme Court has flatly rejected both association- and religion-based claims in such cases already, the bakery stresses that it is making a free speech claim. It maintains that it speaks through its cakes, which should make this case different.

“The reasons for rejecting exemptions based on religion and association, however, are equally applicable to free speech claims. Because almost any conduct can be engaged in for “expressive” purposes, the exceptions would very quickly swallow the rule. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “it is possible to find some kernel of expression in almost every activity a person undertakes.”6 Any business that uses creative or artisanal skills to produce something that communicates in some way could claim an exemption. A law firm, which provides its services entirely through words, could refuse to serve black clients. Photographs are undeniably expressive, so a commercial photography studio could post a sign saying it takes pictures only of men if it objected to depicting women. A sign-painting business whose owner objects to immigration could refuse to provide signs to Latino-owned businesses.

“Likening its cakes to the art of Jackson Pollock and Piet Mondrian, Masterpiece Cakeshop claims that they deserve protection as free speech no less than Pollock’s canvases. But whether the cakes are artistic is beside the point. As an individual artist, Pollock would not have been subject to a public accommodations law and could have chosen his customers. But if he had opened a commercial art studio to the public, he, too, would have been barred from refusing to sell a painting because a customer was black, female, disabled, or gay…

“Only laws that target religion, or that are intended to deny equal treatment to a protected class, trigger heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment’s religion clause and the Equal Protection clause. In a pluralist society, it is inevitable that many generally applicable laws will have incidental effects on different community members. But unless every man is to be a “law unto himself,” there cannot be an exemption for everyone who complains about a law’s indirect effect on his constitutional rights.

“That principle is especially appropriate for antidiscrimination laws, like the Colorado law that Masterpiece Cakeshop seeks to evade. Such laws are by their very nature designed to ensure equal treatment for all, so that no one has to endure the stigma and shame of being turned away by a business that disapproves of who they are. If those laws were subject to exemptions for anyone who could claim his product or service was expressive, they would become not a safeguard against discrimination, but a license to discriminate.”

If the Supreme Court favors the baker, expect businesses to claim that they don’t sell to interracial couples or to Muslims or Catholics or blacks or Jews or any group that offends their religious beliefs. This is an important decision.

When you read an article like this, you wonder if the Republican party has lost its collective mind. Why do they want public money to be spent on religious schools that do not teach modern science and mathematics and history? Why do they want public money to go to charter operators who are not educators? Why do they want public money to be squandered on fly-by-night operators whose motive is profit? Are they deliberately trying to destroy our future as a nation? Are they ignorant, or is it that they just don’t care?

In the linked article, Rebecca Klein writes about the voucher school in Florida that teaches the dubious doctrines of L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology.

Huffington Post has been conducting an investigation of the schools that receive vouches or tax credits, and came across Clearwater Academy in Florida, which uses teaching materials and curriculum “dedicated to spreading educational methods developed by Hubbard.”

The school and others with similar goals insist they are not associated with Scientology, but the Huffington investigation suggest that the connection is real.

As Katherine Stewart wrote in her article in The American Prospect, “Proselytizers and Privatizers”, the charter movement created an opening for religious schools to get public money; she contends that supporters of charters were “useful idiots” for religious fundamentalists, who run some of the nation’s largest charter chains.

I hope that Klein and Huffington Post take a close look at the Gulen charter schools. All of them say they are not associated with Imam Fethullah Gulen, but all of them have boards dominated by Turkish men and teaching staffs with many Turkish teachers. Coincidence? According to parent activist Sharon Higgins, who keeps watch on the spread of Gulen charters, there are now 175 of them, making them either the largest or second largest charter chain in the U.S. The state with the most Gulen charters is Texas, which has 62 Gulen charters. Exactly why are taxpayers subsidizing schools run by a Turkish imam?

Rebecca Klein, education editor of Huffington Post, reports here on a HuffPost analysis of the nation’s voucher-supported private and religious schools.

Many of these voucher schools teach creationism, sexism, racism, and homophobia. They are supported by your tax dollars.

These are the schools that Betsy DeVos wants to send more tax dollars to. Unlike public schools, which are expected to accept all children and to teach tolerance and democratic values, voucher schools teach whatever their religious sponsors want. And all too often, their teachings are hateful toward minorities.

President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos have openly championed such programs and have encouraged states to embrace school choice, arguing that voucher programs give parents an alternative to low-performing public schools. Currently 14 states and the District of Columbia have voucher programs, and 17 have tax credit programs. DeVos has made it a top priority to push a federal school choice initiative.

Should federal and state tax dollars support the teaching of hate? DeVos and Trump say yes.

Our analysis found that about 75 percent of voucher schools across the country are religious ― usually Christian or Catholic, with about 2 percent identifying as Jewish and 1 percent identifying as Muslim. There were gray areas: At least six schools identified as non-religious but used a curriculum created by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.

42% of voucher-funded schools are non-Catholic Christian schools, many associated with an Evangelical group.

HuffPost spoke to nearly a dozen former students and teachers at schools that relied on Abeka, Bob Jones and Accelerated Christian Education curricula. Many of these students, who consider themselves no longer religious, reported feeling traumatized by their educational experiences. A number of them communicate with each other via online support groups for survivors of fundamentalist schools, including Bishop.

Some say these curriculum sources left them woefully ill-equipped to thrive in a diverse society while instilling in them racist, sexist and intolerant views of the world. Bishop [the focus of the article] said her fundamentalist education made her wary of people from other religious groups whom her teachers and textbooks had demonized.

“Anything that wasn’t Christianity was a strange religion,” said Bishop, who made it a priority to study other religious practices after high school and even spent time with the Hare Krishna. “But even other denominations were evil. Catholicism especially.”

Another former student who spoke to HuffPost under the pseudonym Natasha Balzak, was taught at home that all Muslims hate America, she said. Teachers at her Florida school reinforced this idea, telling students to pray for Muslims and other non-believers, like atheists and gay people.

“When it comes to hateful ideology and rhetoric, I was taught a lot of things to skew my mind into believing ― I guess you could call it brainwashing,” said Balzak, 27, who is using a pseudonym to protect the identity of family members who are still deeply involved in their church.

Balzak recalled that her school, Coral Springs Christian Academy, used a mix of ACE and Abeka materials, but the head of the school said they were not aware of the school ever using ACE and that they currently used only Abeka in lower grades for phonics.

The school participates in Florida’s three private-school choice programs and currently enrolls 172 students on these scholarships. It received $554,418 in taxpayer-funded scholarships this year, according to a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education.

A HuffPost analysis of Abeka, Bob Jones and ACE textbooks confirms the recollections of these students. These materials inaccurately portray events in Muslim and Catholic history while perpetuating anti-Semitic stereotypes. The materials speak disparagingly of Native Americans and Native culture…

“When I took my first real science class, a million light bulbs went off,” said Balzak, who had only been taught creationism in school. “Everything finally made sense.”

The experience made Balzak feel robbed of a fact-based education.

Indeed, Balzak’s former school, Coral Springs Christian Academy, includes a statement of faith in its parent-student handbook, which is posted on its website: “We believe God created the entire universe out of nothing.”

The handbook also describes the school’s attitude toward LGBTQ students. It says administrators will reject applicants or expel current students if they are caught “living in, or condoning, or supporting any form of sexual immorality; practicing or promoting a homosexual lifestyle or alternative gender identity.”

Voucher schools are free to teach lies about the environment and about people who are different from the dominant religious group in the school.

These are the schools that Betsy DeVos wants to fund with more taxpayers’ money.