Search News


Browse Archives

News

Faith and Health, Part II

September 12, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Facing a lawsuit charging it with intermingling church and state, the University of Minnesota has dropped plans to offer a set of courses on the intersection of faith and health.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin nonprofit group, had sued the university in March, saying that its involvement in the Minnesota Faith Health Consortium, a partnership with Luther Seminary, which is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and Fairview Health Services, a health care organization, entangled the public institution inappropriately with the promotion of religion. Among the group’s goals, according to its Web site, were increasing understanding of the links between religious faith and health, and “enhancing leadership capacity to link faith and health.”
 
In July, the university withdrew from the consortium, but the Freedom From Religion Foundation pressed its lawsuit because Minnesota continued to plan to offer the Faith/Health Clinical Leadership program, a set of three courses jointly sponsored by the university, the seminary and Fairview. Materials promoting the program described it as a “pioneering effort” to “prepare students from a variety of professional backgrounds for a role in faith/health leadership.”

Course materials described one of the three courses, “Healer’s Journey,” for instance, as letting students “reflect on their own personal, professional, and spiritual values as a means of assisting others to use their own spiritual background for enhancing their own well-being and healing.”

In discussions with lawyers for the foundation, Minnesota officials first reworked the name and proposed content of the course. But this month, after continued negotiations, the university confirmed in a letter to the foundation's lawyers that it would not offer the course, which led the Freedom From Religion Foundation to declare "complete victory." 

"We have halted a serious First Amendment violation, a partnership between a public university and religious organizations to promote religion to students and patients that was intended to serve as a national model," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, the foundation's co-president. In return, the foundation dropped its lawsuit.

In an interview, Mark B. Rotenberg, Minnesota's general counsel, said that the university believed strongly that "mingling faith indoctrination or religious indoctrination or advocacy does not mix with a public institution," and that "it is certainly true that reasonable people, including the foundation here, could see a potential church-state difficulty with the course."

But Rotenberg said that it was never clear that the proposed course would have dealt with religion in an unconstitutional way, because its curriculum had never been finalized. "We'll never know exactly," he said. "Until a professor finalizes the syllabus, walks into the classroom and starts teaching, a university cannot be certain, nor should it dictate, what will happen in that classroom."

Rotenberg also played down the meaningfulness of what the university had given up. "We agreed that we wouldn't offer that particular course under that particular title," he said. "We don't see this as a watershed event or a concession of our academic freedom to engage in wide ranging research or outreach related to faith-based care." The university plans to continue to focus some work in its medical center on "end of life and elder care," he said, and "faith based systems play a large role in care of the elderly and the chronically and terminally ill."

"The University of Minnesota comes out of this without any more legal restrictions on its ability to engage in teaching, research and outreach than we had before the case started," Rotenberg added.

Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said that the university risked future legal action if it tried to offer any kind of course that "crossed the line into promotion of religion. "Let's face it: This course was never taught only because we sued," she said.

"And we would go back and reinstate our lawsuit if they did under some other name what we sued to stop them to do."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Faith and Health, Part II

  • Posted by Ana M. Fores on September 12, 2005 at 10:38am EDT
  • If these people sued the University of Minnesota for teaching a course, then they should definitely sue the President of the United States for declaring a day of prayer: talk about mixing church and state!!!!!!

  • Posted by Ben on September 12, 2005 at 1:30pm EDT
  • The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion (like the Anglican Church in England). I realize that this is a state university. From what I've read in the article, I don't think that the school is trying to found a religion and mandate that all students participate. How a person's faith affects his or her health and well-being has been well documented and should be discussed and studied as the university has indictated. While I may not agree with everything in the course, I support the university's right to have that course. It is frightening that a group can, under the auspices of the First Amendment, force the university to withdraw the course offering. That group has just forced their view onto another group of people (the university and potential students) thereby violating their First Amendment rights - freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceably assemble.

  • Religion for Health Vs. Religion for Religion
  • Posted by Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D. , Bio-Psychologist, Minister of Psychotherapy, Medical Social Work at Q's Ministry of AIWP, ADHC, UIL, UAIWP on September 13, 2005 at 3:14am EDT
  • A distinction is needed between studying the effects of religion on Health versus advocating- or "respecting"- one religion or faith over another in connection to the State.

    The former distinction is subject to research.

    See:

    Hill, P. C. & Pargament, K. I. (2003, January). Advances in Conceptualization and Measurement of Religion and Spirituality: Implications for Physical and Mental Health Research. American Psychologist, 58(1), 64-74.

    Lee, B. Y. & Newberg, A. B. (2005, June). Religion and Health: A Review and Critical Analysis. Zygon, 40 (2), 443.

  • Excluding possibiities
  • Posted by Rich Godfrey on September 13, 2005 at 3:14am EDT
  • Apparently someone has decided that faith cannot be allowed to enhance health, and if it does, no one should know ... and if it is true, Minnesota can't tell anybody.

    Suppose it's a major medical advance. I've seen 20% cure rates reported in the liberal press (that's not Pentecostal Evangel). And it doesn't cost a lot. If it were a new finding, Minnesota still can't talk about it. That makes them less than a comprehensive university. There is one whole field of inquiry they can't touch.

    Maybe the animal rights people can eliminate the study of mammalian anatomy from Minnesota's vet school.

  • U.of M. loses faith law suit
  • Posted by ed klein on September 24, 2005 at 10:58am EDT
  • The WALL Jefferson wanted between religion and government
    has become a picket fence.
    Let s rebuild it!

    If you want "religious"
    research, use PRIVATE funds.
    The final draft of the Constitution deleted the word
    "sacred".
    We all benefit when religion
    and its general beliefs are
    not promoted by government

    If you don t agree, check out
    the Middle East!

    Ed