Under God Or Under-educated
Michael Newdow is at it again. It is unfortunate that SCOTUS chose to dismiss on a technicality his lawsuit seeking to ban public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance due to the phrase “under God” contained therein. The technicality was that he lacked the standing to bring the lawsuit, as he was not the custodial parent of his daughter. This has led him to file a new lawsuit as the attorney of record for several other parents. Ignoring for a moment that our courts have far better things to do than to hear asinine lawsuits such as this, consider the potential implication of him succeeding.
Far from limiting the ban to the Pledge of Allegiance, he might be tempted to prevent schools from teaching anything where the mention of God or religion, however tangential to the subject, occurs.
Students will be prevented from reading:
The Declaration of Independence (…laws of nature and nature’s God…)
The Gettysburg Address (…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…)Great Expectations (too numerous to list)
Tom Sawyer (too numerous to list, plus the !horrors! description of Sunday School)
Students will be prevented from learning about:
The Crusades
The Pilgrims
The Holocaust
Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo
The War on Terror
Indeed, so many examples such as the above could be cited as to effectively neuter the American public education system. Public school educated children will be ill-prepared to attend private universities. The public universities would be constrained against teaching the same subjects, so students who went to those institutions would be ill-prepared to compete in the modern world. So disastrous is this that rather than protect his child from a perceived harm of hearing the word “god,” he would in fact be doing her irreparable harm and dooming her to a mediocre education and dim job prospects. That to me is a far greater harm.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that SCOTUS could have ruled on the merits of the case. The problem is that people are too quick to find offence in otherwise innocuous places. Whether it is the Pledge of Allegiance in school or Christmas trees on public property, someone will always believe that they are the target of special persecution because they do not share the same religious beliefs. In effect, those who claim that such a speech or display violates the separation of Church and State are themselves attempting to force the State to adopt a preferred religion. In the same way that not choosing is a choice, no religion is a religion.
The whole problem stems from a general lack of understanding of the intent of the Establishment clause. The Puritans left England in part because 1) they were not allowed to practice their own religion, and 2) the public school curriculum included mandatory Anglican education. They were denied a choice, as there were no alternatives. They could go to jail if they did not adhere to the tenets of the Church of England, and there were no public schools that did not incorporate religious education.
That situation does not exist in America, and it is that situation that the Establishment clause is meant to prevent. Government cannot compel you to adopt a particular religion, nor can they use State funds to engage in an activity that could be construed as advancing one religion over another. That is the sole intent. It was never meant to be used to hamstring education. Let’s save the First Amendment battles for where they are really needed: school boards that try to disguise religion as science.
It’s not rocket science. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with a passing reference to a historical motivation for the foundation of our great country does not rise to the level of religious endorsement anymore than a discussion about genocide rises to the level of advocating the practice.
Far from limiting the ban to the Pledge of Allegiance, he might be tempted to prevent schools from teaching anything where the mention of God or religion, however tangential to the subject, occurs.
Students will be prevented from reading:
The Declaration of Independence (…laws of nature and nature’s God…)
The Gettysburg Address (…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…)Great Expectations (too numerous to list)
Tom Sawyer (too numerous to list, plus the !horrors! description of Sunday School)
Students will be prevented from learning about:
The Crusades
The Pilgrims
The Holocaust
Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo
The War on Terror
Indeed, so many examples such as the above could be cited as to effectively neuter the American public education system. Public school educated children will be ill-prepared to attend private universities. The public universities would be constrained against teaching the same subjects, so students who went to those institutions would be ill-prepared to compete in the modern world. So disastrous is this that rather than protect his child from a perceived harm of hearing the word “god,” he would in fact be doing her irreparable harm and dooming her to a mediocre education and dim job prospects. That to me is a far greater harm.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that SCOTUS could have ruled on the merits of the case. The problem is that people are too quick to find offence in otherwise innocuous places. Whether it is the Pledge of Allegiance in school or Christmas trees on public property, someone will always believe that they are the target of special persecution because they do not share the same religious beliefs. In effect, those who claim that such a speech or display violates the separation of Church and State are themselves attempting to force the State to adopt a preferred religion. In the same way that not choosing is a choice, no religion is a religion.
The whole problem stems from a general lack of understanding of the intent of the Establishment clause. The Puritans left England in part because 1) they were not allowed to practice their own religion, and 2) the public school curriculum included mandatory Anglican education. They were denied a choice, as there were no alternatives. They could go to jail if they did not adhere to the tenets of the Church of England, and there were no public schools that did not incorporate religious education.
That situation does not exist in America, and it is that situation that the Establishment clause is meant to prevent. Government cannot compel you to adopt a particular religion, nor can they use State funds to engage in an activity that could be construed as advancing one religion over another. That is the sole intent. It was never meant to be used to hamstring education. Let’s save the First Amendment battles for where they are really needed: school boards that try to disguise religion as science.
It’s not rocket science. Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with a passing reference to a historical motivation for the foundation of our great country does not rise to the level of religious endorsement anymore than a discussion about genocide rises to the level of advocating the practice.
posted by exsubdriver at 2:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home