Intolerance of Church in State

The purpose of the separation of church and state is so one does not influence the other. This is vital for the governed, as well as the governing bodies, both secular and religious. Public funding of religion could result in government influencing what is preached and practiced. Conversely, religion could influence laws, such as gay rights and abortion. However, this does not mandate the exclusion of religious reference in public institutions such as schools or courthouses.

Little bit of background on the issue at hand. The Texas legislature passed a bill in 2007 revising the state pledge of allegiance to, “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.” This revisal was done to mirror the U.S. pledge of allegiance, which Congress added “under God” to in 1954.

As an atheist, I have experienced reference to religion quite a bit. Granted, I didn't grow up in Texas, but in California nobody ever forced me to reference religion. During the pledge of allegiance, I would pause while other students recited, “under God,” then resumed with “indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The high school football coach would have us take a knee before games, give some motivational speech, then end it with a prayer. Sophomore year, terrorists flew planes into the twin towers, and we had a moment of silence for that. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces that I recited included, “So help me God,” which I may or may not have omitted. As an atheist, I never felt segregated by these, nor that my personal rights were violated. There was no evidence of the Church influencing the State either. I recognized these references to religion not as an assault on my beliefs, rather, as a custom in the society I lived in. Much in the same way as anyone should when experiencing another culture. This is what is referred to as “Tolerance.” The important aspects of tolerance are the freedom to not participate, and respecting the practice.

I'm not sure what kind of oppression Ms. Williams experienced during her class recitation of the Texas's pledge of allegiance or moment of silence, as expressed in her Not All Under God post. Would her teacher have disciplined her for omitting “under God?” If so, what were the repercussions? If any students were coerced to recite “under God,” then I can agree with Ms. Williams that there are some policy changes that are needed to guarantee the religious freedoms of the students. However, I do not agree that these practices need to be stripped from schools.

Ms. Williams mentioned that she got in “serious trouble for speaking during the moment of silence.” There are two cultural guidelines for a moment of silence, remain silent, and don't be disruptive. You don't have to pray, just tolerate the custom. Beyond that, a moment of silence can be utilized for a time of self-reflection, something even an atheist can do. The trouble Ms. Williams got in was hopefully for only being “rude” and “disrespectful,” and not for her lack of prayer. This is speculative of the reasons her teacher reprimanded her, not her actual intent when she spoke during the moment of silence.

Ms. Williams writes of the respect that will be gained if “under God” and the moment of silence are removed. She fails to mention the loss of respect that will also occur from those that support their practice. Further respect will be lost since the state legislature will be seen as weak since giving into this issue will set precedence for purging the rest of government of god. No more swearing on the Bible in court. Any depiction of Lady Justice removed since she is based on a goddess. Stripping courthouses of any portrayal of the ten commandments. No pre-session prayers by any body of government. “In God We Trust” stripped from the U.S. dollar. No more manger scenes in front of firehouses. The demonization of the phrase, “Merry Christmas.” Happen these practices become excluded naturally through more and more omitting their practice, then it would be a shift in culture that I would completely support. Yet, this active purge is that of intolerance. This isn't the same as the civil rights movement or the gay rights movement. Those movements spread the message of tolerance, opening up more rights to individuals. The removal of “under God” and the moment of silence oppress the opportunity for those that wish to practice them. With that, it seems Ms. Williams seeks to victimize those that practice Christianity in the state of Texas instead of practicing tolerance.

Nowhere does it say that “under God” exclusively refers to the Judeo-Christian god. This is crucial in understanding that “under God” does not violate the 1^st Amendment since it is such a general phrasing that it cannot be in respect to an establishment of religion. Not all religions have god(s), but those that do need not feel excluded by this phrase. If your god is the flying spaghetti monster, then “God” is a truncated title for your deity.

The words “under God” do not offend me because I don't allow them to offend me. I use a moment of silence to reflect on myself or an event. Perhaps if Ms. Williams had the same perspective, then she wouldn't have been victimized by these practices.

Not All Under God was published by Savannah Williams on Tall Texas Talk November 4, 2013

This is supplemental to the critique:
If you want your case to be as strong as possible, proofread your work. Spelling and grammar errors distract readers, and makes the writer look lazy. They leave the reader wondering how serious the writer is if they won't even take the time to edit their own work. This is an obvious negative impact on the merit and credibility of the writing. Composing with a word processing program that has spellcheck is an easy way to eliminate most errors.