It's no secret that the state of Texas has a reputation of being a majorly right-wing religious state. Many Texans, especially those that live in less populated areas of the state, hold to their church's ideals very seriously, since it is their community and overall way of life. Growing up in a religious household, I am no stranger to the belief in God, though it is something I have strayed from as I have gotten older. Not becuase of a hate of it or becuase of an ignorance to fully understand it, but more becuase it doesn't have a lot purpose for me. However, our state in my opinion needs to reexamine our handingling of religion, particularly the relationship between church and state. The installment of "Under God" in the Texas's Pledge of Alligiance and also the installemnt of the Moment of Silence in public schools not only is a failure to divide chirch and state, but is also a violation of personal rights. When a state places "Under God" in thier Pledge of Alligiance, that state severely segregates the individuals who are citizens of that state who do not believe in God or worship any form of God. And when the Moment of Silence too is instilled into a classroom's daily routine, how are the children that were not raised around prayer or any form of religious reflection to feel a part of that classroom activity? The fact that we make such easly impressionable young people recite the pledge with "Under God" and participate in a Moment of Silence is inconsistent with everything Texas claims to be: bigger, and better.
Such repetition and obvious favor of religious folks in public schools isn't just unfair to those that think differently; it hurts those that think similarly too. The length of time of the Moment of Silence and the "mandatory" recitation of "Under God" in the pledge is not regulated throughout all public schools in Texas. Therefore, it is up to the school how closely they follow this legislation or not. For example, when I was in elementary school, I remember getting in serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence. In middle school, some classrooms were more strict than others, and therefore the kids that did actually physically pray during the moment of silence could only do so if they were in the right class. In high school, the Moment of Silence was never practiced, except for its quick mention of it and then onto the morning announcements. I have seen such inconsistently too with "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, this inconsistency is not a sign that we have to crack down on our schools to make them more rule-abiding. It instead is proof that the rules just aren't working, and really, they shouldn't. I propose Texas repeals the legislation of having the Moment of Silence in public schools and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Texas is a state in free nation, a free world. We might be bigger and better but we aren't badder. And the sooner this state realizes that when it comes to this issue, I guarantee you the more respect we will receive from other states and our own citizens.
Part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the separation of church and state is so one does not influence the other. This is vital for the governed, as well as the governing bodies, both secular and religious. Public funding of religion could result in government influencing what is preached and practiced. Conversely, religion could influence laws, such as gay rights and abortion. However, this does not mandate the exclusion of religious reference in public institutions such as schools or courthouses.
Little bit of background on the issue at hand. The Texas legislature passed a bill in 2007 revising the state pledge of allegiance to, “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.” This revisal was done to mirror the U.S. pledge of allegiance, which Congress added “under God” to in 1954.
As an atheist, I have experienced reference to religion quite a bit. Granted, I didn't grow up in Texas, but in California nobody ever forced me to reference religion. During the pledge of allegiance, I would pause while other students recited, “under God,” then resumed with “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The high school football coach would have us take a knee before games, give some motivational speech, then end it with a prayer. Sophomore year, terrorists flew planes into the twin towers, and we had a moment of silence for that. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces that I recited included, “So help me God,” which I may or may not have omitted. As an atheist, I never felt segregated by these, nor that my personal rights were violated. There was no evidence of the Church influencing the State either. I recognized these references to religion not as an assault on my beliefs, rather, as a custom in the society I lived in. Much in the same way as anyone should when experiencing another culture. This is what is referred to as “Tolerance.” The important aspects of tolerance are the freedom to not participate, and respecting the practice.
I'm not sure what kind of oppression Ms. Williams experienced during her class recitation of the Texas's pledge of allegiance or moment of silence. Would her teacher have disciplined her for omitting “under God?” If so, what were the repercussions? If any students were coerced to recite “under God,” then I can agree with Ms. Williams that there are some policy changes that are needed to guarantee the religious freedoms of the students. However, I do not agree that these practices need to be stripped from schools.
Ms. Williams mentioned that she got in “serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence.” There are two cultural guidelines for a moment of silence, remain silent, and don't be disruptive. You don't have to pray, just tolerate the custom. Beyond that, a moment of silence can be utilized for a time of self-reflection, something even an atheist can do. The trouble Ms. Williams got in was hopefully for only being “rude” and “disrespectful,” and not for her lack of prayer. This is speculative of the reasons her teacher reprimanded her, not her actual intent when she spoke during the moment of silence.
Please continue to part 2 of 2.
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteMs. Williams writes of the respect that will be gained if “under God” and the moment of silence are removed. She fails to mention the loss of respect that will also occur from those that support their practice. Further respect will be lost since the state legislature will be seen as weak since giving into this issue will set precedence for purging the rest of government of god. No more swearing on the Bible in court. Any depiction of Lady Justice removed since she is based on a goddess. Stripping courthouses of any portrayal of the ten commandments. No pre-session prayers by any body of government. “In God We Trust” stripped from the U.S. dollar. No more manger scenes in front of firehouses. The demonization of the phrase, “Merry Christmas.” Happen these practices become excluded naturally through more and more omitting their practice, then it would be a shift in culture that I would completely support. Yet, this active purge is that of intolerance. This isn't the same as the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement. Those movements spread the message of tolerance, opening up more rights to individuals. The removal of “under God” and the moment of silence oppress the opportunity for those that wish to practice them. With that, it seems Ms. Williams seeks to victimize those that practice Christianity in the state of Texas instead of practicing tolerance.
Nowhere does it say that “under God” exclusively refers to the Judeo-Christian god. This is crucial in understanding that “under God” does not violate the 1st Amendment since it is such a general phrasing that it cannot be in respect to an establishment of religion. Not all religions have god(s), but those that do need not feel excluded by this phrase. If your god is the flying spaghetti monster, then “God” is a truncated title for your deity.
The words “under God” do not offend me because I don't allow them to offend me. I use a moment of silence to reflect on myself or an event. Perhaps if Ms. Williams had the same perspective, then she wouldn't have been victimized by these practices.
This is supplemental to the critique:
If you want your case to be as strong as possible, proofread your work. Spelling and grammar errors distract readers, and makes the writer look lazy. They leave the reader wondering how serious the writer is if they won't even take the time to edit their own work. This is an obvious negative impact on the merit and credibility of the writing. Composing with a word processing program that has spellcheck is an easy way to eliminate most errors.