I have come to observe, especially in dealing with the local public schools, that there is a major confusion here about the differences between separation of church and state, and the meaning of freedom of religion. If told that one cannot have any religious imagery in a public school classroom, be it a cross, the ten commandments, or Biblical quotes, one may receive the response that then their religious freedom is being infringed. This signals not only a misunderstanding of the two concepts, but also a failure to realize that without said separation, freedom of religion itself could not exist.
In a country of growing diversity, the idea of a secular government is more vital than ever. When one is a public employee, and that includes those in the position of public school teacher, one cannot appear to endorse nor favor one particular religion over another. It's that simple. This is part of the fabric that ensures that one is free, in their personal life, to pursue, or NOT pursue, if it may be, a particular religious tradition without any interference from public or political figures.
It does not matter if a particular area has an identifiable majority. Here in South Mississippi, the population is overwhelmingly Southern Baptist. However, public school teachers still may not display religious articles.
But they do. I was aghast at the amount of religious imagery, including a large rendition of the Ten Commandments in an elementary school classroom, that I have encountered. Can ethics be taught to school children without the use of such items? The idea here seems to be that one cannot - an affront to agnostics and atheists who have indeed lived ethical and productive lives, and that one can only do so with a particularly Christian set of rules- an affront to every other religious tradition on earth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good points well put.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing separation of church and state, it is important to distinguish between the "public square" and "government" and between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. 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 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 may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.