Replies to the Separation of Church and State and Marriage Education ...... 2/1/08

Fri Feb 1 16:02:09 EST 2008

You're asking, so here is a sampling of replies sent regarding the letter
sent to the list on January 25, 2008 by "K":

###############
> Dear Diane,
> The Federal Attorney on the call read from a list that included "Five Love
> Languages" materials and "Date Nine: Spiritual Intimacy" from the Arps' "10
> Great Dates." He made the distinction that some concepts could be shared but
> not the corresponding materials, and in other cases the whole product was
> disallowed (e.g., "24/7 Dads"). Patrick, the host of the conference call
> stated that the entire call including audio and materials used during the
> webinar would be available seven to nine days from then (that should be the
> end of this week at the earliest). Perhaps you could contact the NHMRC to
> obtain and post the list of disallowed marriage and fatherhood related
> products.
> Matt Munyon, Director
> Supporting Healthy Marriage Together Project

It's my understanding that while the NHMRC (National Healthy Marriage
Resource Center) calls are restricted to grantees, the webinars posted on
their website are all available to the public - anyone can listen –all
supported by our tax dollars. Will someone let me know when it's posted and
send the particular url so those interested can listen?   - diane
################

 Dear K: “I am greatly disturbed by your email-and feel you did an excellent
job of expressing my concerns.� Our non-profit is a grant recipient, however
we are not the fiduciary organization and therefore are not included in such
conference calls. Federal grant funds are our primary means of support.� We
have built hundreds of relationships with religious organizations (christian
and muslim).� We are making a difference in communities that have never
heard of marriage education, where the idea of life-long, healthy marriages
has been beaten down and now has been given a voice again.� If we are
required to give up our�funding, I don't know how long we can survive. (We
are using this 5-yr period to build alternative funding.) If we must limp
along with these restrictions, our success will be greatly limited--at least
I forsee the religious communities that we so rely on for the numbers we
must report, and the promotion and success of our programs, to be
increasingly resistant to working with us, and to further distance
themselves from our efforts.� The expansion of 45CFR Part 87 endangers our
success and our very existance.� HELP!!  I don't mind if you want to share
any of this with the listserve, but please eliminate any identification of
me or our organization. Thanks!” - Anonymous

#########
Dear K: “I agree with you 100%.  I am the coordinator of the Refugee Youth
and Family Services program which provides services to kids and parents,
including parenting and marriage education.  I work for
_______________________ but my program is funded by the ___________
Department of Children and Families, so what you have written about could
directly effect my program.  Part of the materials we use include sections
of the PREP program.  Almost all of the refugees we work with are religious
and consider faith an important part of their families/marriages.  We work
with primarily Christian, Muslim and Buddhist families and families of mixed
religious backgrounds, so we address spirituality in a way that respects all
faiths.  There is no question that spirituality needs to be addressed.
Please keep me posted and let me know if there is anything I can do.
Thanks!”  - Anonymous

##############

Dear K: “I am writing to express my concern over this topic. While we are a
university-based HMI, we work with a number of local faith-based
organizations. This has the potential to seriously impact our relationships
and ability to work with them.” – Anonymous
############

Dear K: “Your email was very interesting. I completely agree with you. I do
not have any federal grants and have never applied for any. However, I have
stayed current on the church/state issues. Many of these agencies become
very misguided in what they think they can do and not do. This is the kind
of situation that the Alliance Defense Fund likes to get in the middle of. I
am not sure what the next step would be, but I do think that interested
parties could contact them for direction. I can't believe sometimes how out
of balance some groups and agencies get.” - Anonymou

#############
Dear Diane, 
“The issue becomes an ethical consideration for practitioners.  If a
family expresses an interest in talking about their marriage through their
relationship with God and I as a practitioner tell them I cannot talk about
it in that way due to federal regulations I am committing an ethical
violation at best and malpractice at worse (assuming I am licensed.  At the
CCF training in DC a few years ago I raised this question only to be told
that I would need to tell the family that I could not talk about God even if
THEY brought up that perspective.  I am agnostic by the way. Leaving out
chapters on spirituality is plain wrong. These chapters open up
opportunities for dialogue on one critical aspect of marriage.  The ACLU
needs to be stopped. I think this is an issue for Bill O'Reilly.
Seriously.” - Anonymous

#############
“Dear Diane, I can see the objection to what a 'religious' person cannot
see:  that "proselytization" IS "inherent" to the 'spiritual' aspects of
these programs.  For instance, in K saying she found "Nothing! Zilch!" - she
is focusing specifically on the lack of 'overtly religious' words, ignoring
the 'proselytizing' ones. Re: proselytization, see #3: “To induce someone to
espouse one's doctrine” (Definition of "espouse:" to take up and support as
a cause : become attached to) When people are religious, they honestly can't
see that incorporating 'spiritual' aspects to the programs is a
thinly-disguised effort to 'proselytize' (encourage people to "become
attached to" a religious orientation in relationships). Just as fish don't
know they're in water (because that's all they know), religious people don't
know they're awareness is restricted as well.” - Anonymous

######################
Dear Diane: 
I am not a particularly religious person but I totally agree with "K".
 How can we do marriage counselling or teach marriage education
without some reference to the values.  AMEN to "K".  I don't know how
to go about helping but I would be glad to help.  Can we contact our
congressmen?  Thanks, "K" for letting people know.
"M"
######################
Dear Diane: 
The problem the grantees are facing has a relatively SIMPLE SOLUTION:
Implement a voucher system.

The Supreme Court has already upheld the rights of parents in Ohio to use a
school voucher that is paid for by government funds to have their children
attend any school they want including religious schools like private
catholic schools.

The grantees could implement a similar system and as long as the voucher
would allow the recipient to attend a 100% strictly secular option they
could offer any other option that had varying degrees of religious
overtones including programs like Christian PREP.
Aaron Larson
HealthyMarriageTips.com

##############
To "K" --   cc: Diane

Thanks very much for your careful analysis of the OFA proposed shifts in
defining what can and cannot be included in marriage education.  I fully
agree with your analysis and with Diane including it to the Smart Marriages
list serve.  What do we do next?  E-mail our Congress reps?  go to the top
at OFA? or what?  I hope you can create a strategy and enable us all to
implement it and that Diane will continue to share “what's next” with the
list.

Also, while I certainly agree with your "Keep God in Marriage" theme, for
political and government purposes and in the spirit of the references you
mention ---  it should be "keep spirituality issues in marriage"  -- more
awkward but avoids suggesting that all couples must have God (our God) or
any "god" (lower case) in their marriage.  The focus for all couples is
really on the type and quality of the "spirit" (or spirituality) of the
values they hold for themselves in the context of today's world.  These may
or may not involve a "god" but certainly are based on the vast body of
research that shows that spouse agreement with basic principles of mutual
respect, values, goals, etc. is a major key to understanding sexuality,
finances, parenting, and all the other aspects of any couple relationship.
As a Christian, of course, I can add my own "religious" terminology that
supports these positive values, and others who don't want to add such can
also do so.  It is a matter of the empirical measurable qualities of
attitude and behavior that we are all seeking in common.

Richard Hunt, M.Div., Ph.D.     Denton TX   huntrj at verizon.net

################

> This is an example of how  some federal agencies interpret and set
> guidelines according to that department's thinking.  It has both alpha and
> beta error.  The doctrine of the separation of church and state has been
> automatically assumed in that no religious or spiritual emphasis is allowed
> in any information or training that has federal funding.  Most
> interpretations from agencies have prohibited proselyting or propogating a
> specific religious doctrine.  This interpretation below does not allow any
> spiritual connection for fear of being sued.  This is the "tail wagging the
> dog" or "fear of offending a minority of unbelievers" to the point that we
> are divorced from anything spiritual.  This is a negative "begging the
> question" that prohibits any connection with one basic reality of human
> beings (ie. spirit).  The age old dualism of mind and body illustrated by
> Descartes is used to eliminate two other realities of emotions and spirit.
>
> Smart Marriages and programs connected toward a goal of healthy marriages
> has never propogated a specific religious doctrine.  In fact, they run away
> from any hint of it.  The Office of Family Assistance has assumed a total
> separation of anything spiritual that is connected with the wholesome
> development of families.  This is beauraucratic garbage that makes a
> decision without any vote or consultation with the general public.  This is
> akin to "taxation without representation."  PREP has been used in military
> training with the reasoning that happy and healthy families make better
> soldiers.  I see a real danger in what appears to be a denial of First
> Amendment, Title IX and other rights.  There has been an acceptance during
> the past few years of "Faith Community Involvement" which accepts a resource
> of positive development of families.  Any "backtracking" is to move
> backwards to a policy of noninvolvement of faith communities.
>
> I'm not sure what needs to be done but I am going to dialogue with our
> representatives in state and federal government about this issue.
>
> Larry Hatfield
################

> Dear "K" ~
>
> In brief, I wholeheartedly agree with you and what you wrote in your email
> regarding the topic of God/faith/religious beliefs.
>
> At this moment, immediately after reading it in the Smartmarriages Newsletter,
> I have nothing further to add.
>
> I simply want to say I support you in your descriptions, examples, and
> concerns.
>
> I think the issue of the "issue" being made an issue in another example of
> someone bending over backwards to such extreme that they are not standing up
> anymore for what they believe and, therefore, claim to defend.
>
> As a PAIRS Instructor/coach my experience has been that we honor individual
> differences, on all matters including religious and spiritual beliefs, in a
> tacit respectful way that allows participants to be who they are and
> encourages them to become more fully their own authentic self.  This includes,
> but is not limited to, how and what they believe, without proselytizing any
> particular faith or religious tenets.
>
> The same approach applies to people's beliefs regarding parenting, cultural
> life, leisure activities, sexual behavior, what language to speak in their
> home, what music to listen to, where to go on vacation, and so on.
>
> To disallow or ban mention of any of these beliefs and practices would be
> tantamount to disallowing individuals the expression to be fully who they are
> and wish to become. This would actually go against the implicit intention in
> marriage education to accept each other and, in fact, enhance and help each
> other be a more whole fully functioning human being.
>
> That is an act of love. Let's not permit anyone to turn it into an act of
> suppression.
>
> Supportively,
>
> Annie Schlachet Garfield, LCSW
-----------------------

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE to this Free listserv, or change your subscription
address, use the form at (http://www.smartmarriages.com). Click Newsletter
in the column under the puzzle piece.

Please respect our copyright. If you wish to use any of our content send an
email to request permission.

Send submissions and comments for the listserv to: diane at smartmarriages.com
Do NOT hit "reply". If you hit reply your email will go into cyberspace and
NO ONE will see your email.

This is a moderated list. Submissions and comments are read by Diane Sollee,
editor. Please indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.
PLEASE include your email address or url as part of your signature.

Please also understand that with thousands of subscribers, not all comments
can be shared. Also realize that opinions expressed are not necessarily
shared by members of the Coalition.

To read past posts to the newslist, visit the Archive at:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/

12th Annual Smart Marriages® Conference, Hilton San Francisco Hotel,
July 2 - 5, 2008  
Pre-Conference Training Institutes June 30-July 2
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 6

Details: http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html

List your program and resources on the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com

Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
http://www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332