Religion

Some readers of this column, I am all too well aware, think that because I occasionally take religion seriously, I must be some kind of a nut. This comes up in particular in regard to my advocacy of school choice, which makes many people assume I am a Catholic (or about to convert). For better or worse, this is not the case. I happen to be that lowest of forms of religious life, the fallen-away Unitarian. My interest in religion, I like to think, is simply the result of following the data.

As dozens of pink-cheeked 5- and 6-year-olds, fresh from recess, burst through the doors at the Tappan Zee public school, first-grade teacher Barbara Hoffer did something she had never done: She began to read the Christmas story to her pupils. "Angels appeared glorifying and praising God," she read to the little upturned faces. They sat on the floor in front of a display case with a small nativity scene. "What does glorifying mean?" one first grader asked. "It means wonderful," she explained.

The religion clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof. " Simple and straightforward as that sounds, the clauses have been a source of bitter controversy for over a century. Heated battles over the proper relationship of government to religion have been fought in the context of public schools. The role of the school in inculcating a system of moral values in children, and the conviction of many parents and teachers that religious belief is essential to morality, have produced conflicts between believers and nonbelievers.

My friends on the far right are mistaken. It wasn't the Supreme Court that expelled God from our public school classrooms. It was the textbook publishers. That conclusion may be drawn from a revealing study by Paul E. Vitz, professor of psychology at New York University, who spent months in careful analysis of 60 textbooks widely used in elementary schools across the nation. His study was conducted under the impeccable auspices of the U.S. Department of Education. This is no flea-bitten piece of "research" from some cow college in the barefoot belt.

Alain de Botton isn't exactly what you'd call religious. The Swiss-born philosopher and novelist has never been shy about proclaiming himself an unbeliever - a lifelong, dyed-in-the-wool atheist. But as he argues in his new book, Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion (Pantheon; 320 pages; $26.95), de Botton does believe, passionately, in religion. Paradox? Folly? Madness? De Botton, who has been accused by critics of trading in the first and suffering from the other two, will speak about the book at the Central Library of the Free Library of Philadelphia Sunday at 2 p.m. Born in Zurich, but living in Britain since his early teens, de Botton, 42, made a splash at 23 when his debut book, Essays in Love (published in America as On Love: A Novel )

NEW YORK - The New York Police Department collected information on businesses owned by second- and third-generation Americans because they were Muslims, according to newly obtained secret documents. They show in the clearest terms yet that police were monitoring people based on religion, despite claims from Mayor Michael Bloomberg to the contrary. The NYPD has faced intense criticism from Muslims, lawmakers - even the FBI - for spying operations that put entire neighborhoods under surveillance.

In recent years the Supreme Court has grappled with some tough cases involving the separation of church and state, but a case now developing in Mobile County, Ala., eventually may provide the toughest case of all. It raises a thorny question: In their effort not to indoctrinate children in "religion," are the public schools in fact indoctrinating children in "religion"? Under the Constitution, as we know, the states may not in any way foster an "establishment of religion. " There can be no official prayers, no reading of Bible verses, no recitation of the Lord's Prayer, no posting of the 10 Commandments in a classroom.

On a steamy Friday night in June 1985, a clergyman set off a communitywide debate when he spoke about Jesus to 450 senior citizens, their relatives and friends during an invocation at the Washington Township High School graduation. The invocation offended many in the audience, some of them Jews, who protested to the Board of Education. Their feeling was that the board should require that any invocation at a school function be nonsectarian. But others, especially those in the clergy, objected to the idea of a nonsectarian rule.

When it comes to God and politics, the Democratic presidential candidates are worlds apart. And it is not necessarily because of what they believe. Both are Protestants who say they have had intense religious experiences, but Vice President Gore and former Sen. Bill Bradley display sharper differences on religion than on perhaps any other subject. While the two struggle to distinguish themselves on health care, poverty and education, it is their near-opposite approaches to God in the public arena that offer the starkest contrast of their personalities and leadership styles.

As soon as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision on the Pledge of Allegiance last week, the e-mail started pouring in. Most railed against the idea that a couple of judges could strike down the words under God, which Congress added to the pledge in 1954. But a few suggested that if I didn't like the decision, maybe I should try thinking about how I'd feel if Congress had inserted the words under no God instead - a sentiment echoed by the Ninth Circuit. In order to protect religious liberty, they implied, we have to make sure government divorces itself from any expression of religious belief.