Religious Realms: To Secularize or Patriotize

Pennsylvania is currently deciding whether the phrase “in God we trust” should be prominently placed in the classroom. Proponents argue, among other reasons, that displaying the national motto is just showing patriotism. One of the major arguments against doing this is that it violates the idea of having separation of church and state. The votes are very evenly split, but enacting this is a terrible idea for a number of reasons.People defend the enforcing of “in God we trust” adorned in public school classrooms because it is not a religious symbol, but rather a sign of patriotism in the United States. Let me say that this national symbol is completely meant to be religious. This motto was first adopted during the height of the Cold War to combat and separate us from the “godless Communists,” but now that this is no longer the case, the phrase is obsolete and outdated in its original goals of keeping America non-Communist. Nowadays, it holds a different meaning for people. It shows that the domineering Christian majority in a country in a time of change will eventually create a diverse society that cannot be all contained under God. “In God we trust” cannot be defended as a purely patriotic phrase, as advocates for this bill would argue. These words only show that people put their trust in God, saying nothing about the nation in which we live.Separation of church and state is a fundamental founding principle that would be blatantly violated should this law be passed. In displaying the words that state this is one nation under God, government is saying that there is only one proper deity, one proper religion, in America as a whole. Forcing teachers to place this clause in their classrooms is contrary to what the forefathers of this country imagined it to be; this forces religion upon those who should be free to be themselves. Children, especially young ones, may feel pressured to convert and abandon their familial values in order to be more “American.” Affecting schools and classrooms, this clause would be forcing religion upon both teachers who may not believe in the Abrahamic sense of God and students who may feel pressured to acknowledge the existence of a God they don’t believe in. Freedom of religion is another thing entirely; freedom of religion is the ability for everyone and anyone to practice his religion without being prevented from doing so by the government. What this law would be doing is giving the government power to force religious sayings in public school classrooms.Even if this were seen as a purely jingoistic idea, it still violates the freedom of choice. Children should be taught different systems of government and learn about other countries because they should have the freedom to choose which government, which state, they believe in. This freedom is violated time and again through traditions like the Pledge of Allegiance, so enacting a law like this would be taking a step backwards in political and ideological diversity. Not doing so is creating an ever-provincial generation of people who need to have unbiased knowledge of government in today’s globalized world.There are already many legal precedents from history that would also suggest the unconstitutional nature of this bill. McCollum v. Board of Education illegalized religious release-time in schools, School District v. Schempp illegalized any posting of the Ten commandments, but, perhaps most relevant, Wallace v. Jaffree was the case that prevented schools to open each day with a moment of silence just to name a few. Although these cases may seem like completely irrelevant bans on religion in school, they showcase the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to integrate spiritual affairs into public facilities, more specifically, schools.Pennsylvania lawmakers should not ratify the bill making it a requirement for the phrase “in God we trust” to be prominently displayed in classrooms. It violates both the idea of freedom of religion, a fundamental belief so important it comprises the first amendment of our Bill of Rights, and the concept of secularization and separating church and state. This proposed idea is contrary to these ideas and, simply put, a reactionary practice in a country that prides itself for revolutionary procedures. 