Last Tuesday, the European Union Court of Human Rights upheld Belgium’s 2011 ban on wearing the full-face veil, also known as the niqab, in public places.

This decision comes after two Muslim women mounted a legal challenge to the ban, claiming that it violated their civil rights. Belgian national Samia Belcacemi and Moroccan national Yamina Oussar both say they voluntarily choose to wear the niqab and that in not being able to, their right to religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Oussar reportedly told the court that she decided to stay home after the ban was introduced in fear of legal repercussions. Belcacemi continued to wear the veil for a period, but stopped because of societal pressure and fear that she would be heavily fined.

Under the law, individuals who fail to comply with the law regarding full-face coverings face penalties ranging from a hefty fine to imprisonment for repeat offenders.

The European Court of Human Rights upholds a Belgian ban on wearing the full-face niqab veil in public pic.twitter.com/S1unR1Y4Dq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) July 11, 2017

Siding with Belgium’s legislature in a unanimous vote, the seven-person panel said a statement that the ban is “necessary in a democratic society” and that the Belgian law is meant to ensure “public safety, equality between men and women and a certain concept of living together in a society.”

A hot-button issue in Europe

The topic of people’s freedom of religious expression in the public sphere has been at the forefront of European politics for several years now.

Belgium is not the first country to take a stance against the niqab or burqa. France banned full-face veils in 2010, and since then, at least 10 other European countries have placed limitations on Islamic dress. Just last month, Norwegian legislators proposed a ban on full-face veils in public schools and universities. The bans are largely seen as a response to the influx of refugees in the region. In Belgium, the 2016 terror attacks have also intensified the debate.

Federal Pensions Minister Daniel Bacquelaine, a member of Belgium’s Reformist Movement party, said on Twitter he was delighted at the court’s announcement, which he believes will strengthen Belgians’ ability to live together.

“To forbid the veil as a covering is to give them more freedom,” Baquelaine said back in 2010 before the law passed. “If we want to live together in a free society, we need to recognize each other.”

Since the E.U. court’s decision, human rights groups have expressed their discontent with the ruling.

“Fostering human relations is a laudable goal,” wrote Hillary Margolis, the Women’s Division Researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But forcing women to choose between wearing what they want and being able to appear in public isn’t the way to do it.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EU Human Rights Court Upholds Belgian Ban on Full-Face Veil appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, “Empire” star Terrance Howard confessed that he hit his first ex-wife, describing that he “lost his mind” and “slapped her in front of the kids.” This confession isn’t exactly coming out of left field. Over the last couple of years in his various marriages, Howard has been accused of slapping, punching, and strangling his partners, living up the dark nature of his character on “Empire,” Lucious Lyon. Howard attempted to justify his deplorable, violent behavior with his first wife Lori McCommas by saying that she was talking to him “real strong.” With his second wife, Michelle Ghent, Howard claims that she tried to “mace him” and that he didn’t mean to hurt her, he was just trying to get her away. Howard’s relationship with his most recent wife, Mira Pak, appeared to be healthy and strong, until she mysteriously filed for divorce earlier this year.

Although Howard’s relationships have all been multi-cultural, this situation still brings up important issues of black love and the relationship between black men and women. The media’s coverage of black celebrity figures’ violence against women opens up different conversations about dynamics within relationships, but black relationships are the least discussed.

But they shouldn’t be. Black women have notoriously been at the forefront of movements standing up for issues that plague black men. Black women have historically fiercely defended the rights and desires of black men. During the civil rights movement it was women–wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, mothers, and grandmothers–who stood up for not only their own issues but those of their brothers, friends, fathers, and husbands. During the 1992 Rodney King riots, we saw black women weeping for black men, and accepting the harsh reality that the police were their enemy. Even now with the Black Lives Matter movement, we see black women leading the charge to remedy this social issue that directly attacks black men. Black women have taken on the social issues that have plagued black men for the last couple of decades.

However, this support is not reciprocated. Hardly ever do you see black men standing up for issues regarding and experienced by black women. Black men often do not speak up for issues of beauty, professional advancement, abuse, assault, and general vulnerabilities that are unique to the black female community.

Thankfully, we are starting to see a shift in a lack of misrepresentation of black women in the media. Viola Davis, star of the thrilling ABC television series “How to Get Away with Murder,” just won an Emmy for her incredible portrayal of her character, Annalise Keating, giving a spectacular speech on the difficulties and lack of opportunities black women face. Taraji P. Henson, Kerry Washington, and Megan Good are also changing the game, proving that black women are leading women too. This positive representation directly affects black relationships and love. The more it is widely understood that black women are real, strong people who are overcoming yet still dealing with issues that are a part of their identity, the quality of these relationships and communication within them will be transformed. The media plays such a pivotal role in this transformation, and it is so exciting seeing the growth of positive representation of black women in television and film, regardless of the actions of some of Hollywood’s leading men like Terrence Howard.

Hopefully this growth will motivate black men to act proactively in supporting the advance of black women in society. It is going to take more than black women speaking up to start to change the nature of not only black relationships, but society in general. Silence and inaction is the equivalent of destruction. Support can only lead to success for all.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terrence Howard Reveals Domestic Violence: Do Black Men Support Black Women? appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

The past few decades have seen an increase in negative childhood behavior such as bullying and school violence, causing many to feel that today’s youth do not subscribe to the same moral values and codes of conduct that previous generations have. Traditionally, education in morality and social conduct was primarily done in the home, and children learned from their parents, elders, and neighbors. School was a place merely for academic education, and children were expected to come prepared with a sense of right and wrong. However, there are many people today that feel that public schools are, at least in part, responsible for providing students with education in areas such as morality, ethics, and good citizenship.

Answering the call, numerous character education programs have been created by private organizations, state and local school boards, and corporations that have designed curricula, created lessons, and provide the tools necessary for schools to provide character education to their students. Read on to learn about these character education programs, their benefits and problems, and what they mean for the future of education.

What does character education consist of?

Character education usually consists of some sort of system of values or principles that help students develop their own moral priorities and ideologies.

Eighteen states currently mandate character education in public schools through legislation such as North Carolina’s Student Citizen Act of 2001, which requires local boards of education in the state to develop and implement a character education program in their schools. As the momentum for character education grows, it remains to be seen whether it will become an integral part of the American education system.

What are the arguments for character education?

Advocates of character education argue that these programs teach universal values that create more academically successful students and, in time, more socially productive citizens. Values such as respect, responsibility, integrity, perseverance, justice, courage, and self-discipline are commonly agreed to be desired characteristics in an individual, and character education programs target these core values and teach children to incorporate these values into their everyday lives. Teachers, parents, and students who have worked with character education argue that teaching these values in school produces students with higher academic performance, improved school attendance, reduced violence, fewer disciplinary issues, less substance abuse, and less vandalism.

Reports and polls have shown that around 90 percent of Americans support teaching values such as honesty, democracy, and acceptance in public schools. Additionally, many teachers argue that character education makes students easier to teach. More importantly, advocates argue that character education is necessary in a democratic society to create good, moral citizens. In a society in which the people have power in the political sphere, many argue that it is imperative to have a citizenry with a strong sense of morality and its role in society. Therefore, character education is entirely required to transform the youth of today into the citizenry of tomorrow.

Lastly, many character education programs are reactionary tools used to combat an increase in bullying and school violence. Advocates argue that by teaching universal values, schools can help create a stronger sense of community and a safer learning environment for students.

What are the arguments against character education?

While character education has its advocates, many argue that it presents children with a negative view of humanity and is often used more as a tool for control or political sway than for the nurturing of caring, thoughtful students. Opponents point to a commonality that most character education programs share called the “fix the kids” orientation, which attempts to teach children morality on the basis that all people are inherently bad in nature and must be taught how to live among one another. Many experts argue that this negative view of humanity is harmful to children’s conception of morality and ethics, and that instead these programs should encourage students to reflect upon what causes people to make bad decisions, and how they themselves could make a better decision in that same situation.

Similarly, many of these programs are conducted through the use of extrinsic rewards such as candy or a pizza party for good behavior, which experts say teaches students to do what they are told simply for a reward, and not to behave morally because it is the right thing to do. In addition to criticizing the methods by which character education programs work, many opponents also criticize their underlying foundations and purpose. While these programs teach “universal values,” opponents point out that there is still bias upon deciding just which universal values to teach to children.

Many argue that these programs have political undercurrents, often teaching children traditional, conservative values that lean toward the political right. In the end, opponents say, these programs are designed to create malleable, robotic students who do not question authority and will grow up to become benign citizens uninterested in questioning or changing the current power structures. These findings were corroborated in a 2010 study conducted by The Institute of Education Sciences that found the benefits of character education to be negligible. In a study of 84 school districts around the country, researchers found that there was no difference in academic improvement between schools with character education programs and those without. Opponents argue that this federal report provides statistical evidence to their claims that character education is used merely as a form of crowd control and does not make students inherently more moral. Instead, many would prefer to implement programs that promote thoughtful reflection on social issues and inter-personal communication in order to teach students concepts such as empathy, critical thinking, and understanding.

Conclusion

It’s important that we teach our children to be responsible and good citizens, but for a long time we’ve been questioning how exactly to do that. Some people argue that it’s a matter best taken on by parents and communities, while others think that schools can play an important role. Don’t be surprised if character education shows up on your child’s curriculum soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S Department of Education: Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children

Additional

NC Public Schools: Character Education

Atlantic: The Benefits of Character Education

National Character Education Center: Character Education Should Be Taught

The Genius in Children: Should Schools Teach Values or is That the Parents’ Responsibility?

Alfie Kohn: How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look at Character Education

Education Week: Character Education Found to Fall Short in a Federal Study

Boston Review: Whose Character? Why Character Education is Inherently Flawed

Patriotism For All: The Problem With Character Education

The New York Times: Should Character Be Taught? Students Weigh In

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: A Common Goal

Red Orbit: Character Education in America’s Public Schools

Education Week: Should We Teach “Character” In Schools? If So, How?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Character Education on the Public School Agenda appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

Conflict between religion and science is nothing new; starting in the seventeenth century, Enlightenment philosophers began to criticize religious traditions in favor of strict reasoning and the scientific method. More recently, a study led by Princeton economist Roland Bénabou argues that highly religious states lack scientific innovation. Controlling for factors such as per capita GDP, education, and foreign direct investment reveals the persistent obstacles to innovation that religion imposes. Measuring by the number of patents filed, countries — and even American states — show “a strong negative relationship” between religion and scientific innovation.

This study is vital to understanding the nature of religion in society and public life. Unfortunately, the scope and rigor of the research give credence to the claim that religion can be an impediment to progress. Considering that religion will not, and should not, go away any time soon, how do we reconcile its tendency to block scientific innovation with its importance in civilization? Full disclosure, I can’t say that I know the answer, but here are a few things to keep in mind.

First, this study may evoke concern about religion’s place in politics  But if we ignore religion in our politics and shove it to the margins of public discourse, the religious issues that we encounter won’t suddenly disappear. Instead, they will remain pervasive without an open forum for solutions and compromises. This study should, if nothing else, inspire us to bring religion into public discourse so that our leaders can foster open scientific inquiry. The study even cites the beginning of Islam’s spread and the “initial willingness of Muslim leaders to engage with logic and rational sciences.” Although opposition to such innovation was soon after opposed, progress was made “in chemistry and in medicine, and the use of the experimental method became widespread.”

Indeed, throughout much of ancient and modern human history, religious institutions have actively supported scientific endeavors. For centuries, throughout Europe and the Middle East, almost all universities and other institutions of learning were religiously affiliated, and many scientists, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus and biologist Gregor Mendel (known as the father of genetics), were men of the cloth. Others, including Galileo, physicist Sir Isaac Newton and astronomer Johannes Kepler, were deeply devout and often viewed their work as a way to illuminate God’s creation.

– Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project

Further, we should remember that patents in modern technology are not the only measure of societal progress. Research in sociology suggests that religion actually played a key role in the development of communities. New York University professor Jonathan Haidt examines some of the most important sociological development theories in his book, The Righteous Mind. He discusses how, evolutionarily, humans “have a few group-related adaptations” along with those that natural selection gave us on the level of the individual. Religion helps progress “gene-culture coevolution,” forging stronger groups and communities through cultural and genetic evolution. As Haidt writes, “religious practices have been binding our ancestors into groups for tens of thousands of years.”

Undoubtedly, scientific innovations and technological advancements are key to growth; be it economic development or further cultural tolerance, science and reason can be powerful forces for development. That being said, the ancient communities that evolved into today’s great nations are indebted to religion’s role in bolstering their abilities to cooperate. So, while religiosity can be an obstacle for technological innovation, it has historically been a force for creating strong moral communities and binding groups together.

Choosing one way to measure how a state or society advances can help us track progress, but it is dangerous to ignore other metrics for understanding human development. We should keep in mind the positive effects of religion, and not declare it unfit for political discussion. Our rational discourse and scientific creativity would suffer from doing so.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros) is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and is looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government.

Featured imaged courtesy of [Wally Gobetz via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Role of Religion in Scientific Innovation appeared first on Law Street.