Separation Between Church and State: Existent?

Why fix something if it’s not broken? This is a fundamental question that clearly and definitively illustrates the involvement of religion in the doctrine of the United States – that is to say, the separation (or lack thereof) of church and state. To me, the most blatantly illustrative document that we read this past week was the Pledge of Allegiance. Prior to 1954 (it was initially written in 1892), the Pledge of Allegiance contained no hint of religion or the word “God.” Eisenhower then added the words “under God” and, in my opinion, created a standard of sorts that God would be included in many of the country’s policies. This is simply not okay. Why would we need to change the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States in order to make it involve God unless we felt like our nation should be tied to God, and, in turn, religion? We wouldn’t. Now when I say we, I clearly am not talking about the entire population. Sixteen percent of the population is unaffiliated with a religion, and a percentage of those people do not even believe in a God at all. Why should they have to involve God in their pledge of allegiance to their country? They shouldn’t. We are supposedly a secular nation. However, I would argue that we are not. The common way to end a political speech now is to say, “God bless America.” We don’t say “Allah bless America,” or even “Bless America;” we directly tie religion into politics through actions like these.

To me, the reason that this is such an issue is because of our claim that we are a secular nation. Though we may claim this, we undercut this claim with the actions I have previously stated. Faith in God is a deeply personal thing, and extremely different for each person, both believers and non-believers. To generalize it, to apply it to an entire nation, cheapens the importance of God to certain individuals, as well as makes the statement that our nation looks to the Christian model of God. If an individual who knew nothing of the United States (particularly its religious affiliations) were to read the Pledge of Allegiance or speeches from recent Presidents, or look at the dollar bill, there is little doubt in my mind that this individual would classify the United States as a clearly non-secular, clearly Christian nation. This begs the question: are we?

1“The Pledge of Allegiance.” Bellamy, Francis. Modified by Eisnehower, Dwight D.

Who's Got the Power?

The climate of our classroom for the past week has been…interesting, to say the least. Frustration, dissention, and negativity seem to have been at an all time high. Yet the issues we are discussing this week are no different than the issues we have been discussing for the other weeks of class. So why does everybody care all of a sudden? My opinion is that this is the first time in the class where many of the students have had the subject relate directly to their lives. They were each put into a group (white male, white female, black male, etc.), and were told what that symbolized – they were, in essence, stereotyped, and for many, the stereotype rang true. To make another generalization, what do teenagers dislike more than being told who they are and where they are going? The smallest incongruence with their “true selves” sparks an volley of retorts: “Yes, but I’m not…Not exactly…etc,” which is comical, because how many high schoolers actually have any clue as to who they are or where they are going? This week’s discussion was about who had the power in America. It was essentially declared that white males do. Statistically, it is not something that you can argue with. Therefore, my class looked to the more analytical elements of the argument, such as, “Why do we feel the need to classify people into groups like this?” and some even asked (generally outside of the classroom setting), “Who cares if white males are in power? It’s that way because there are more white males, and they historically have been in power.” It was interesting to me that it seemed to be the white males making the vast majority of these comments. Was it because there were more of them in the class? Or because they felt like they were defending our justifying their “kind”, which is an odd concept on its own.

Accordingly, we read “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” by Peggy McIntosh. Regarding white privilege, McIntosh states, “I had been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.”1 That is to say that McIntosh had been conditioned to ignore her “privilege.” Perhaps that is why the white males in my class were so frustrated. They had spent their entire lives being conditioned that there was no white privilege: that they struggled, others struggled, and skin color didn’t really play a role any more. Therefore, when this concept of white privilege was presented to them, it made them uncomfortable, and the only way that they knew how to fix it was to blame the system, and this classification system in the first place. However, sight is one of our most elementary senses. Without hearing a single word of what a person has to say, without knowing a thing about them, we immediately classify them based on what we can see: their race, their level of attractiveness and approachableness, their apparent demeanor, etc. Judging something by its appearance is a trait that evolutionarily helps us to survive; we run away from the threatening looking tiger. It is a characteristic that, no matter how much we want it to, may never disappear from human nature. In my opinion, white males are in power because they have been in power, and people are generally uncomfortable with change. So yes, that does give white males a bit of an advantage. However, can we really generalize this; can we categorize a group of people by nothing more than their skin color and gender? It makes us uncomfortable because we see it, recognize the logical flaw, and continue to do it anyways. We may speak of things such as white privilege, but we do little to correct it, because that only serves to draw more attention to it, which makes us even more uncomfortable. It’s a vicious cycle.

1 McIntosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Essay.

Motivation

Why do we listen to anything?
Why do we listen to each other, music, or the stories of fictional characters created for no one but us?
Why do we do anything?
Why do we talk to each other, tell each other our problems, our deepest secrets?
Why do I give you my testimony, and why do you want to hear it?
Why do we write books for others to read, and songs for others to listen to and sing?
Do we do anything for ourselves?
Or do I do everything for you?
Nothing means anything, so everything means something.
The way you speak, the words you use – you justify your apathy in your own mind.
And then you tell us about it.

Don’t make me apathetic.
You’re pathetic.


In this piece of writing, I tried to explore the motivation, the “why,” behind why people do the things that they do. I believe if we understand the motivations behind people’s actions, whether it be in day-to-day life or in a music video, we can more fully understand the intent.

I also tried to explore our seemingly pervasive and widespread desensitization of language – why people now think that it’s acceptable to use words like “retarded” and “fag” in order to insult someone. However, I feel that this may have the opposite effect. We would not be able to have a class discussion about it if it did not, as people would simply not recognize the issue if there where not one. In the line where I said, “Nothing means everything, so everything means something,” I meant that humans for one reason or another search for deeper meaning and purpose in most aspects of their lives. Accordingly, when nothing carries meaning, when no word has the significance that it used to bear, humans then will analyze that, and the words that we use as insults will be scrutinized, and analyzed for this “new” meaning – this meaning which allows it to become an insult. When people say things such as, “but I’m not saying that they’re gay, it just is a word that I use as an insult,” they are justifying their manipulation of the language into something that it is not, and, in turn, desensitizing those around them. This in turn brings everyone’s language down to their level, and makes that which we say even less important. Even non-offensive words or expressions have lost their meaning. I love you is now a phrase that two girls can share with each other after knowing each other for ten minutes. That is just a blatant lie. Yes, this may seem trivial, but the manipulation of language seems to have had a deeply profound affect on our culture. Language is our primary mode of expression, and when we become desensitized to language, it seems that we also become desensitized to various actions. We tolerate it because “everyone does it”, or because it will make money. Isn’t there more to life than that? At the end of the day, when you are alone in your bed, are you actually happy? Did you say what you meant? If no one else were around, would you act the same way? In my opinion, most people will do what makes them feel good. In the past, this may have served to help people make decisions that benefit themselves; however, in our present society, there are so many factors that make people feel good, such as attention and money. Both of these things directly involve other people. Therefore, peoples’ actions become altered to satisfy the wants of others, because that in turn satisfies their primary desire.