The debate about religion in schools seems trite in the year 2010. Indeed, there is a strong legal basis to the argument of separating religion and state. Moreover, the origins of the great nation we live in are definitely founded on the individual's right to exercise - or not - the religion of their choice. Maybe the key to our problem is the underlying paradigm - whether our society is more like a 'melting pot' or a 'salad bowl'. Assimilation versus multiculturalism. The melting pot presumptuously implies "different elements 'melting together' into a harmonious whole with a common culture". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot)
The salad bowl imposes "the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism)
America was born and baptized in a "religious bloodbath". The very first pilgrims fought each other in the name of religion. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/hidden-history-excerpt.html?c=y&page=1)
Although the nationality of the first pilgrims and the exact date of their arrival may be questioned, there is no doubt that they came "to escape religious persecution and government oppression" in Europe. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)
In 1789, our founding fathers guaranteed an individual's freedom for religious choice through the First Amendment of the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights)
However, even then, many colonies and states ignored this precept and adopted a specific religion as "the religion of that region".
Today, people still try to question the scope of religious freedom. Like politics, religion reflects the best and the worst of human nature. Beliefs that should foster enlightening spiritual journeys are sometimes mainly validated through conspicuous, rigid practices. Religious differentiation has, throughout time, given men an excuse for intolerance. Religion is polemical in all scenarios, even in our schools - or should we say, especially in our schools.
In our public schools, children from a rich diversity of backgrounds come together to learn in a systemized and safe environment. (It is funny to think that these two terms - 'systemized' and 'safe' - could coexist, given that many educators - including Gatto - would label them as opposites!) The assimilation paradigm adopted by our school system commands them to be treated as if they were all alike, to downplay characteristics that are different. Religion is one such non-conforming characteristic.
Schools today are the scenario for power struggles over what constitutes freedom of religion. For example, an Illinois state law "requiring public school students to observe a moment of silence meant for prayer or personal reflection at the start of each school day" was challenged by an atheist parent and ruled against on the grounds of unconstitutionality. (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/on-education/2009/01/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up)
District Judge Robert Gettleman postulated that the state law was "an unconstitutional breach of the separation of church and state" thereby granting the removal of the state law. Supporters of this law claimed that the student could exercise "personal choice whether to pray or reflect more generally". In spite of the First Amendment's command for "freedom of religion", the judge denied this right to those who wanted to pray during this quiet moment. (What a positive effect this would have on a student's day - to prepare for the new day by assigning a brief minute or two to reflect or pray!)
The reason behind this ruling - besides the probable whim and personal beliefs of the judges: the US Supreme Court "not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion." (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm)
Public schooling is provided by the State - hence, the undesired intermingling of state and religion.
In Texas, biologists and social conservatives demanded that the State Board of Education revise the curriculum to eliminate the terminology and focus that prompted student evaluation of "the 'strengths and weaknesses' of all scientific theories". (http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/on-education/2009/01/22/religion-in-schools-debate-heats-up)
They claimed that this recourse was used by teachers "to slip creationism into the classroom."
A final example of religion being misconstrued in the school environment: when it is perceived to enter into a conflict with patriotism. Showing national pride by displaying respect to the national symbols should be embraced by all those who appreciate their nation. Indeed, all religions establish that the supreme being that they honor should matter most to the individual. In the case of religions that are oriented towards positive principles, no conflict is created between State and God. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mcc:@field(DOCID%2B@lit(mcc/016)))
Our founding fathers believed that "the interests of society are best served if individuals are free to form their own opinions and beliefs." (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion)
However, freedom of religion for all appears to have been interpreted as freedom of religion for 'none' - only the atheists benefit from the constraints that are placed on those who do hold religious beliefs and practices. It is indisputable that validating all the different costums is hard - however, it is also so very enriching and more importantly - it is our national reality! Multiculturalism calls for differences to be acknowledged, shared and celebrated.
In the end, how do we solve this problem which literally pushed our ancestors across the ocean, which tainted the inception of our new nation, and which still plagues our daily relationships in most social interactions. I would like to sum it up in one word: tolerance. (I must admit I have recently taken a liking to this word. I am treating it like a panacea. I understand, tolerance may have its limits!)
I picture 'tolerance' as a gentle hand stretching out in a helpful gesture. Intolerance, in my mind, adopts the shape of a weapon-bearing hand, ready to inflict plenty of pain. Tolerance is a virtue that has a concrete impact on the quality of a person's life, as well as that of those with whom he or she comes into contact with. Different groups may act together to display their tolerance or intolerance of other groups or ideas. Tolerance, or the lack thereof, will become a habit ingrained in a person's character, and can also be adopted at a higher level of conscience as a principle leading that person's life.
No comments:
Post a Comment