Debates
of religion touchy, difficult to find
conclusion
Sean Cocca
Religion is a touchy subject for most people.
People do not like to have their beliefs called into question, so the topic is
usually avoided in polite conversation. Just bringing it up will earn you the
ire of your friends, coworkers, classmates or whomever may be within the distance
of your voice. Sometimes even if a person holds the same beliefs as you, he or
she may still be offended by you discussing those beliefs openly. This phenomenon
is quite peculiar to me.
Nearly 170 million adults in this country identify themselves as religious in
some way or another, according to the 2000 Census. With almost 160 million of
those people belonging to some form of Christianity, it is truly curious that
so many people find the topic of religion to be taboo.
Perhaps it is because religion is so sacred to so many. Maybe people fear exposing
too much of themselves by discussing what they believe. Or maybe people do not
want to shake the very foundation of their beings by calling into question their
core beliefs. Whatever the reason, religion is usually off-limits for debate.
That is, of course, unless the topic is separation of church and state. The mere
thought of this issue produces images of the Ten Commandments adorning the lobby
of a courthouse and the phrase “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Proponents of the separation of church and state point to the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....”
These 16 words have sparked the debate between the advocates and opponents of
separation for the past few decades.
The debate erupted in 2000 when Michael Newdow, an avowed atheist, sued the Elk
Grove Unified School District, along with the United States Congress, then President
Bill Clinton and the state of California for forcing his daughter to listen and
participate in the pledge of allegiance which contained the phrase “under
God.” Newdow claimed the inclusion of those two words constituted an endorsement
of religion that, he said, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The case went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002, where they ruled
in favor of Newdow and removed “under God” from the pledge. However,
the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the court overturned the
Appeals Court decision because they found that because Newdow did not have custody
of his daughter he could not file a suit on her behalf.
Consequently, another case was filed more recently in January of 2005 on behalf
of three unnamed families against the use of “under God” in the pledge
and a district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs citing the 2002 Appeals
Court decision as precedent.
While I disagree with the notion that calling upon a non-denominational deity
named “God” in the pledge of allegiance violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment, I recognize that the separation of church and
state is not enforced as much as it should be.
Much attention is paid to just one side of the argument, and that is religion
should not influence the operations of the state. However, what happens when
the state tries to influence the operations of churches? Does that not constitute
a violation of the separation of church and state?
Take, for example, the case of Michelle McCusker, a 26-year-old Catholic school
teacher in New York. McCusker informed the administration of the school that
she was pregnant and that she did not intend to marry the child’s father.
A few days after breaking the news to school officials, McCusker was shocked
to discover she had been fired from her teaching position.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “Officials said that she had signed
a contract to uphold core teachings of the Catholic faith and that her behavior
had violated that agreement.” The New York-based Civil Liberties Union
has filed a complaint against the archdiocese on McCusker’s behalf.
As a former Catholic school student, I know that teachers are not only there
for the intellectual development of a child, but for their spiritual development
as well. In that regard, I can see how the presence of an unwed, pregnant teacher
could cast the teachings of the Catholic church in doubt in the minds of some
or all of the children at that school.
If this case is taken to court, who should win? Did the school discriminate against
the woman because she was pregnant? Is the school justified in firing the woman
because she violated the terms of her teaching agreement? Should the state even
consider this case if it were to come before it?
I say no.
If we are to live in a society that advocates the separation of church and state,
we must respect the established laws and mandates of each. If a person signs
an agreement to teach at a religious institution, whether they are a man or woman,
they should be bound to the conditions of that agreement, and the state should
not have a say in the matter.
The NYCLU has no case. McCusker was rightfully fired.
Sean Cocca is a senior journalism major.
.
|
