America, Land of the Free; Not So Much

Our founding fathers had a good idea and put together a set of documents outlining our new government.  They did however make a few mistakes.  If for a moment we can put aside the fact that a group of men decided that all men were free, while many of these men were slaveholders, we can address another of their grievous errors.  That mistake deals with freedom of religion.

The United States Constitution is mostly devoid of references to religion.  It merely touches on religion in Article VI where it prohibits religious scrutiny in order to hold public office.  Nice in theory but in modern practice professed atheists or others with less than mainstream religious backgrounds (read, Christian) need not apply.  Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and William Taft were accused of being atheists.  Dwight D. Eisenhower was raised as a Mennonite but abandoned that religion and was baptized as a Presbyterian prior to his first term.  John F. Kennedy was challenged for his Catholic faith.  Barack Obama, a Christian, was accused of being a Muslim and an atheist.

Freedom of religion was not seriously addressed until the 1789 adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution (actually this was the third amendment proposed but One and Two were not adopted so number Three moved to the head of the class), which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We would have been better served by a policy of freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion.  Such an edict would have allowed individuals and groups to practice and believe anything they wanted so long as those beliefs were not imposed, in any form or fashion, on others.  Reasonable interpretations of such a written policy would have made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to force prayer into schools, government assemblies, and other policy decisions.  President Eisenhower would have found it difficult to adopt “In God We Trust” as the nation’s official motto and dictate that it be printed on all US paper currency.  It should be noted here that this phrase had been on US coinage since the Civil War.

If you think all of these issues were settled by the Supreme Court ages ago, think again.  As this is being written in April of 2017, the State of Florida legislature is again considering legislation (SB 436) to bring prayer back to schools.  The bill is titled, "Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act."  Even in the title, the writers are attempting to hide their intent with wording that would lead you to believe it is merely a reinforcement of established freedoms.  

The drafters of this bill are meticulously trying to structure a new law to avoid conflicts with the Constitution and previous Supreme Court decisions.  Their motivation is clear, they want religion and prayer back in our schools and government, even if they have to “tolerate” other beliefs.  What they fail to address is the fact that no person or student should be held in a place or forced to even hear the expression of the religious beliefs of others.  If I have a right to an education, and elect to attend a public school, I should not be forcibly subjected to the influences of any person's religious beliefs.

We already have parochial schools, private schools, and school vouchers that would allow students to attend an institution catering to their religious wants and needs.  While I object to the use of tax dollars to support religious schools, the mere fact that they currently exist would question the need for a further erosion of our supposed separation of church and state.  I have no problem with free speech when it is truly free.  By this I mean, anyone should be entitled to express an opinion in a forum where that opinion can be challenged and debated.  Such is the foundation of higher learning.

It should not be governmental policy however, that a student body be forcibly subjected to religious indoctrination, by way of the expression of the religious beliefs of others, in a school setting.  Even the process where religious opinions are proffered as subjects for debate, such debates would have no place in our lower grade levels.  Elementary school children are not yet well equipped to challenge these opinions.  These children would be subjected to adult belief systems if this legislation were to pass.

In our current fact challenged society, we do not need a furtherance of unchallengeable opinions, expressed as religious beliefs, to confuse our impressionable students.  Facts such as evolution should be taught as science where the proof can be shown.  The scientifically provable fact that the earth is well beyond the Bible’s 6,000 years in age, is established.  Anyone who wishes to challenge such facts needs to express more than mere opinion.  It is not sufficient to state, I read it in the Bible, or the Talmud states, or the Koran says, or I heard on Fox News that something is true.  Come up with your scientific proof or be able to admit yours is just an opinion and that it may not be true.


Wording in the Florida bill states that it is, "authorizing a student to pray or engage in religious activities or expression; authorizing a student to organize prayer groups, religious clubs, and other religious gatherings" and it further prevents school personnel from preventing such activities.

These “good Florida Christians” in public office should weigh the potential for disruption that would be inherent in their proposed legislation.  Do they plan to halt all school activities so devout Muslims can break out their prayer rugs at the appointed times?  Will teachers of varying beliefs be forced to monitor and supervise religious activities of all faiths?  Will atheists be allowed to counter others with their “heresy”?

Keep religion the Hell out of our public schools, if you believe in such a place (Hell, not public schools).

For more on my opinions on religion you may read my blog entry that directly deals with the topic of  religion.