The baddest Pokemon team on the block
13 years ago
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Thoughts....
After reading an article about the "separation of church and state" in a public high school I feel the need to express my opinions. I believe that any individual should have the right to express themselves through any measure whether it be religious or something else. I can understand the need to obey laws, but not being able to paint signs with Bible verses at football games is too over the top. I admire the cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High for having the courage and convictions to try to include religious aspects at school events. Apparently the crowds that came to the games liked their efforts since they joined in by wearing shirts and making their own Bible verse signs. I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance which includes God's name and praying at school functions. Someone that feels the need to make such a big deal about including God in school functions seems really ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. While some try to pass off the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly Everson v. Board of Education, as simply a misreading of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, that letter played but a small part in the Court's decisions. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court's view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to "[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government." Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that old habits die hard and that tendencies of citizens and politicians could and sometimes did lead them to entangle government and religion (e.g., "the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress" and "for the army and navy" and "[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts"), he considered the question whether these were "consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom" and responded: "In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
ReplyDeleteIn keeping with your basic point, when discussing separation of church and state, it is critical to avoid the all-too-common mistake of conflating the "public square" with "government." The principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The First Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion.
As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated.
While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in particular circumstances may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical. Here the government (i.e., the school) funded and developed a football (and cheerleader) program, built facilities (i.e., the field and stands), promoted the event, and assembled a crowd. When its cheerleaders then display religious signs, reasonable people might read them as the government's endorsement of religion.
The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to transform our secular government into some form of religion-government partnership should be resisted by every patriot.
I'm not a patriot.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe that someone actually commented on my blog! I am very curious to know how you came across my blog? I respect your opinion, but i will never agree with you. Honestly, do you really think that i care about your response? I am simply a student expressing my opinion for my journalism class at school.
ReplyDeleteWell said Molly. We Agree.
ReplyDeletePoppie & Mimi
Molly,
ReplyDeleteSimply a journalism student expressing an opinion for class? Am I to understand that you're not taking yourself seriously, so neither should I? Or perhaps you just never intended your blog to be used for commenting. I respect your opinion--even though you're just getting started in life and have lots to learn--enough to offer my own in response. You are free, of course, to make as much or as little of it as you like.
BTW, in an idle moment, I did a search for "separation of church and state" and came across your blog entry.
Good luck.