Wouldn’t it be Great IF . . .
Guy T. Sturino
August 10, 2005
Yesterday my wife and I were discussing the Virginia Standards of Learning. Before I retired she and I worked at the same alternative high school, where she has since been responsible for overseeing the SOL testing program. Our discussion was about graduation requirements, and she mentioned that there was an SOL requirement for History, but that there was not one for Government. That struck me as strange, even though there is a portion of the middle school Social Studies SOL that does cover the subject somewhat.If it were up to me, every high school graduate would have, as a requirement for graduation, good reading, writing, and math skills, and a thorough understanding of government. Along with a high school diploma each student would receive their own copy of The Constitution of the United States. Nothing would do more to make people aware of what is happening around them than to understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
As a case in point, today, after reading an Associated Press article published in the Virginian-Pilot, I wound up on the website of the Anti-Defamation League where I read a posting that reads in part:
New York, NY, August 8, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly criticized the recent appeal by Reverend Jerry Falwell for his constituency to "vote Christian in 2008" and urged him to retract his "divisive and un-American" call to action.
In a mass fund-raising letter, Reverend Falwell wrote that he sought "to utilize the momentum of the sweeping conservative mandate of the November 2, 2004, elections to maintain a faith and values 'revolution' of voters who will continue to go to the polls to 'vote Christian' and call America back to God." Falwell included in his letter to supporters a car sticker that reads, "I Vote Christian."”
The concern of the writers was that the fund-raising letter of Rev. Falwell was anti-Semitic.
I had a different take. Rev. Falwell’s obvious intent (to me anyway) is to encourage voters to apply a religious test as qualification to government office. Is he just exercising what he believes is his right to free speech? I wonder.
Article VI ,Paragraph 3, of the constitution reads,
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”(Emphasis added)
But Amendment I reads,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)
I believe that the intent of the framers was that speech against provisions of the constitution would be protected in order that the constitution could be discussed and that amendments could be made. However, speech in violation of the constitution would not be protected. I can only think that they expected that reasonable people would understand and abide by the difference. Therein lies the rub. Every day, in the paper or on TV someone talks about freedom, democracy, and civil rights, and everyone reading or listening believes that they understand exactly what the writer or speaker intended. The cry of ‘freedom’ has come to be an emotional knee jerker to gain support for this position or that. The word ‘democracy’ is used interchangeably with capitalism, and ‘civil rights’ is most often associated with slavery or affirmative action. There are, of course, different interpretations. The differences in understanding lead to long and laborious struggles to convince each other of our own ‘truth’.
If everyone were required to prove their understanding of the constitution in order to graduate from high school, many points of contention would become mute, and the rest could be discussed intelligently. Wouldn’t it be great IF. . .
As a case in point, today, after reading an Associated Press article published in the Virginian-Pilot, I wound up on the website of the Anti-Defamation League where I read a posting that reads in part:
New York, NY, August 8, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) strongly criticized the recent appeal by Reverend Jerry Falwell for his constituency to "vote Christian in 2008" and urged him to retract his "divisive and un-American" call to action.
In a mass fund-raising letter, Reverend Falwell wrote that he sought "to utilize the momentum of the sweeping conservative mandate of the November 2, 2004, elections to maintain a faith and values 'revolution' of voters who will continue to go to the polls to 'vote Christian' and call America back to God." Falwell included in his letter to supporters a car sticker that reads, "I Vote Christian."”
The concern of the writers was that the fund-raising letter of Rev. Falwell was anti-Semitic.
I had a different take. Rev. Falwell’s obvious intent (to me anyway) is to encourage voters to apply a religious test as qualification to government office. Is he just exercising what he believes is his right to free speech? I wonder.
Article VI ,Paragraph 3, of the constitution reads,
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”(Emphasis added)
But Amendment I reads,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)
I believe that the intent of the framers was that speech against provisions of the constitution would be protected in order that the constitution could be discussed and that amendments could be made. However, speech in violation of the constitution would not be protected. I can only think that they expected that reasonable people would understand and abide by the difference. Therein lies the rub. Every day, in the paper or on TV someone talks about freedom, democracy, and civil rights, and everyone reading or listening believes that they understand exactly what the writer or speaker intended. The cry of ‘freedom’ has come to be an emotional knee jerker to gain support for this position or that. The word ‘democracy’ is used interchangeably with capitalism, and ‘civil rights’ is most often associated with slavery or affirmative action. There are, of course, different interpretations. The differences in understanding lead to long and laborious struggles to convince each other of our own ‘truth’.
If everyone were required to prove their understanding of the constitution in order to graduate from high school, many points of contention would become mute, and the rest could be discussed intelligently. Wouldn’t it be great IF. . .
Print
Email
