Teachers are likely to win the right to wear religious clothing such as turbans, yarmulkes, crosses and headscarves in public schools when the Oregon Legislature meets in February, elected officials say. Oregon's prohibition on allowing teachers to exercise their faith by covering their heads or wearing other religious garb dates to a shameful anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant period in state history and is overdue to be changed, House Speaker Dave Hunt, D-Gladstone, said Monday.
Having emigrated to Oregon from the uber-Christian, holier-than-thou Great State of Texas not so very long ago, I'd hope that I'd left this sort of controversy behind. I understand that Oregon's prohibition on religious garb in the classroom may not have positive origins, but that doesn't mean that in this day and age that it's not a good idea. When last I checked, our public schools were about educating children, not indoctrinating them. Why anyone would thing that allowing religious garb in Oregon's classrooms is a good idea is beyond me.
I'm not anti-religion; Hell, I'm a Buddhist...though you couldn't often tell by the way I act at times. Religion, when not bastardized and co-opted in the pursuit of legitimizing a political agenda, is and can be a perfectly good thing. Like anything else, though, there is a time and a place for religion...and a public school classroom is neither. When it comes to the business of educating our children, it's difficult to see how promoting or advancing religion, even obliquely, furthers this endeavor. Children deserve to learn their 3 R's in an academic environment free of ANY sort of religious influence. If students choose to engage in religious activities outside of school hours, then more power to them. Children should be able and allowed to pursue whatever spiritual pursuits interest and move them...but school should be for learning, and issues of religious dogma can only muddy the waters and complicate the process. Ultimately, religion seems to be about adults trying to convince child of their ultimate and unquestioned superiority of their imaginary friend. That's all well and good outside of a public school, but our education tax dollars are supposed to EDUCATE children, not finance forcing religion on them.
If a parent wants a child to have a religiously-oriented education, there are plenty of private and parochial schools available to meet this need. When last I checked, though, the separation of Church and State was still a basic tenet of the American political system. Sadly, the effort to revisit Oregon's ban on religious garb in public school classrooms is just another attempt use taxpayer dollars to support the advancement and promotion of religion.
How about we focus on the curriculum being taught and providing the resources to ensure that our children go out into the world with an education that prepares them for success. Is our children learning? Not when adults are busy trying to force their imaginary friends on them.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
So this means that, constitutionally at all, the kids will get to go back to wearing colors (gang stuff), bare-midriffs and baggy-ass pants, since that would be “equal” and all……. why does so much time get wasted on what is a waste of time???
I’ve pondered this post for a couple days after reading it (finding it to be a thought provoking argument). First let say that I consider myself to be a non-theistic humanist who firmly embraces the separation of church and state. I also think that it is important for us to have an understanding of what this ‘separation’ actually means.
The first amendment states that: ‚ÄúCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…‚Äù For the state of Oregon to prohibit it’s teachers from wearing vestments or garbs that are often required by their religion is a clear violation of their first amendment rights. The state government is essentially forcing it’s teachers to choose between losing their jobs and maintaining the tenants of their faith, punishing those who choose the latter. Separation of church and state goes both ways and also protects religion from the dictates of an often intolerant government. Both the ‘Establishment Clause’ and ‘Free Exercise Clause’ of our first amendment must be respected and honored in order for true separation to ever survive.
I don’t quite understand your argument that allowing this freedom ‚Äúforces religion‚Äù on students. I stand firmly behind protecting our children from religion (including ‘intelligent design’) in the pubic school system. But how does a teacher wearing a headscarf in the classroom promote her religion? Instead I believe it can only foster tolerance and understanding in a country where people continue to be persecuted for their differences.