“Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.” This relates to a state where the governor is so bold (regardless of implications and reverberations) that he openly promotes a second wave/era of Secessionism. Those declarations, of course, are framed in terms of States’ Rights. You know, just like they were – in 1859 (and 1964). How far can the honorable slogan “Don’t Mess With Texas” evolve from promoting connotations of emboldened independence (Sam Houston) to eliciting references of shame (Chuck Norris)? What’s next? Will (captive) students soon be forced (indoctrinated) to learn (from the elementary stage forth) updated interpretations on due process (since Magna Carta), probable cause (basic rights/land of the “Free”), speedy Public trials (with impartial juries/without indefinite detention), right to counsel (protected from the opposition’s surveillance), cruel and unusual punishment (torture), and double jeopardy (acquitted, but they keep terrorizing with new venues)? Since the Constitution, to this minority, is such an “outdated document” and just a “G…Damned piece of paper,” the likelihood of our Bill of Rights becoming a subversive/socialistic representation – in their hands – is completely realistic. From our beginning, the importance of Prohibiting an establishment of (State/National) religion has been fought over for many historical reasons. If only we could (proudly) be “One Nation Under God” – without a (supposedly) sanctioned few forcing their personal translations of that God upon every individual citizen.
Reaction to the latter sentence: “The inherent contradiction embraced in that statement is profoundly disturbing!” “Why can’t we be ‘One Nation, United in Freedom from doctrinal ideology’?”
Reply: For theists, it is neither contradictory nor disturbing. The “profoundly” welcoming door in the statement imparts a nation, with various beliefs, under God (as we all are) – without disparaging differences between Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. True, atheists are offended by such designations; “In God We Trust” must also be an outrage to them. Yet, while we (for the most part) go out of our way to be all-inclusive, how much should an ultimate majority be expected to give in and give up? The certitude in a “Higher Power” has been predominant since the original settlers forged their path. While many major mistakes were made throughout our history regarding religion (and continue to be: note critical tone of original comment), it does not mean the proper outcome ought to be one of complete impiety. We progress by perpetually seeking acceptable balances and boundaries, not by making goals to erase all ideology – to such a point that Freedom, here, is only finally realized by nonbelievers if it’s a barren Utopian landscape, completely void of Spirit.