No getting around it: Our religious identity cannot be separated from who we are. A student in a classroom does not suddenly suspend his or her religious being and detach from a set of spiritual training and values.
The Tribunes front page story on Thursday, Bill gives religious rights to school children, (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/110093) showed how knotty an issue living out ones religion freely in public schools can be. For the most part, accommodation and common sense have prevailed in classrooms and halls. When teachers and principals convey a sense that all on campuses should recognize social, cultural and religious diversity and cut everyone slack, it has largely worked. That has included allowing school Bible clubs the same freedoms as other school clubs and students to do an essay on religious theme.
It seems fair to allow students to wear religious identity jewelry like crosses, stars of David or other faith symbols. And if a student wore a pentagram, that should be OK, too. Purists would say ban them all, then the offending pentagram would disappear by default.
Rep. Doug Clark, R-Anthem, is well meaning in his bill HB2713 calling for schools to adopt content neutral standards, according to the story by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. Clark asserts that religious expressions and even religious items would have to be given the same treatment as similar secular expressions and items, the story said.
At the heart of the debate is an education centers role of ensuring maximum learning, which almost always is an idea-changing and expanding exercise, while allowing the individual to be authentic and free to think. If a student from a very conservative home walks into science class and insists the world cannot be millions of years old because the Holy Bible says otherwise, he or she should be able to make the case to the class or in an essay. But that student ought to be able and willing to listen to the standard science account and evidence and submit to the critical thinking exercises that lead to truth and best theories prevailing in worldviews.
Much of Fischers story included legislators valid concerns that too much expressive freedom, such as T-shirts for or against gays or lesbians, would follow and distract from learning. Lawmakers took turns pointing out free expression would give license to students to go after the groups they support, namely expressive Christians or gays. This is how Fischer reported one legislators position:
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R.-Gilbert, said both are entitled to the same treatment. Both of them have an opinion on what is right and what is wrong, he said. But, he said, school officials decide that the ones who are being disruptive and the ones whose views can be stifled are the ones wearing the religious shirts, not the ones wearing the other side and attacking the religious perspective.
Yet Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, sees a distinction between attacking an individual for their choices and for their lifestyle. He calls it an affront on a person. I see it differently than disagreeing on an idea.
The undercurrent of the bill seems to an effort to ensure protection of minority thinking and academic freedom. If a student goes all the way through a biology course and still insists humans and animals co-existed on the earth 5,500 years ago, can or should that student get a failing grade? Or should that student just swallow and regurgitate what the teacher taught about dinosaurs in the Jurassic eon and man waiting to show up in the Cenozoic time period? Obviously, we can choose to reject what we learn. Belief and knowing are different entities.
But the article shows that when sparks fly in the academic arena and when parents have ultimate say in their childrens welfare, they turn to legal remedies. Theyll sue schools if they believe, for example, their childrens religion was violated or their beliefs cost them good grades. Such threats drive schools to tread lightly.
Many, of course, get around all this by sending their children to religious,charteror private schools where other rules apply andcreationism beliefs canprevail.
Ultimately, it seems, students, parents, teachers and administrators in public schoolsshould recognize they all hold beliefs somewhere on the spiritual spectrum, from rock-hard faith to no belief in a higher being. They each want to be able to believe freely. All should understand that unfettered learning calls for open, critical thinking that may fortify or challenge what one believes. And in the maelstrom and laboratory of learning — the school all should accept ways that people express their beliefs in civil and respectful ways so that learning always wins out.
The mind has a way of changing, even to our own alarm.
