Shouldn’t The Separation Of Church And State Include Woke Cult Indoctrination?
Separation of church and state is the idea that government should remain neutral toward all religions and not officially recognize or favor any particular religion.
In the separation of church and state, churchrefers to religion in general, while staterefers to the government, local and federal.
In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution ensures freedom of religion. This means that the government cannot give special treatment to one at the expense of other religions. It also can’t unfairly punish one specific religion. Americans are free to practice any religion they want or to practice no religion at all.
The First Amendment also forbids the government from establishing a state religion in what is known as the Establishment Clause. Over the centuries, courts and scholars have interpreted the Establishment Clause to mean that the government should be entirely neutral in regards to religion and must maintain a separation of church and state.
In practice, this means that the government cannot establish a national religion. It also means that the government cannot force citizens to practice a specific religion nor force churches to perform acts that go against their religion. This is why, for example, an American Catholic church can refuse to perform a same-sex marriage even though American law recognizes same-sex marriage as legal.
Just as religion is free from the command of the government, the government is free from the command of religious groups. As an example, the United States government does not have to follow any religious scripture or laws. The government is free to pass any law it wants, even if the law conflicts with a religious commandment.
Which begs the question, if a nation that consists largely of those that believe in the Christian faith, can effectively have prayer removed from every school in America, why is it that views and beliefs that are held by such a small minority are inflicted upon the majority?
In fact, most Americans ARE NOT, lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transexual. All of those groups combined represent an extremely small minority of the American population. Therefore, legally, it cannot be supported, glamorized, and certainly not under any circumstances, promoted or required in any school or university in the country.
That’s what makes the State University of New York, (SUNY) Board of Trustees decision to require freshman to take a course on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Social Justice, or they don’t graduate, both illegal and unconstitutional.
In September of 2021, The New York State Board Of Regents demanded:
“Every New York school district will develop and adopt a diversity, equity, and inclusion education policy. It is the expectation of the NYS Board of Regents that the Department, schools, and districts will implement DEI policies and practices with urgency and fidelity. The Board of Regents will discuss a framework on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for New York State Schools which will serve as the basis for adopting a policy statement. With this framework, the Board is ready to address the long history of racism and bigotry, and the corrosive impact they have had on every facet of American life.”
Think about the unmistakable irony here. Schools and universities are not allowed to promote or expose students to any type of religion, but they are allowed to promote and expose them to alternate lifestyles while hiding behind the devious vali of inclusion. Lifestyles which may very well violate their religious beliefs, which are not allowed to be discussed.
In truth, religion is a lifestyle. People conduct themselves in a manner that is dictated by what they believe. It guides their social interactions and influences their relationships. Yet, it has been deemed to be not admissible in a classroom.
The confusion comes in the use of the word “church.” A church is an inanimate object. A church cannot literally be brought to a school or university. Therefore, the implied separation involves not teaching or exposing students to any specific religious lifestyles, rituals, traditions, or documents. This was supposedly implemented so those that don’t agree with that type of lifestyle or belief system were not offended or unduly exposed to it.
It’s offensive to hear defenders of this legal separation decry that presenting anything to do with a religious lifestyle is morally wrong, but then turn around and defend laying bare alternate lifestyles practiced by a minority of people.
Yet, many school districts are currently getting away with exposing impressionable and vulnerable students to things that many consider to be perverse and blatantly wrong.
SUNY’s decision has taken this to a different level of absurd, and it needs to be dismantled before it becomes a requirement this fall.
Professor Nicholas Giordano who teaches at Suffolk Community College was interviewed by the New York Post and had this to say:
“This is nuts. SUNY is one of the best university systems in the country. Why are they doing this? DEISJ is a cultural movement, not based on academics. Unfortunately, SUNY responded to the mob.”
Giordano states that the course implies that the United States is “inherently racist, while creating groups and pitting them against each other. The curriculum wants students defined by the color of their skin.”
Jerry Kassar, the chairman of the State Conservative Party, stated the new course is essentially a critical race theory class.
“This is a woke left wing agenda, It’s dangerous,” he says. “They’re treating everybody as having prejudice. It’s like a socialist, communist state, It’s unbelievable. These ideas are best addressed at home.”
The University Faculty Senate and the Faculty Council of Community Colleges to Campuses defended teaching the course in order to consider perspectives from outside America.
In a written statement they said, “One can imagine how theory and criticism rooted outside the United States could help guide faculty and students in addressing and thinking about diversity, equity, inclusion, and social justice in the United States.”
Why should American students need to explore theories and criticism on diversity from other countries in order to graduate? Do we really want the faculties basing their lesson plans on the criticisms of American society from possibly vengeful or envious countries?
The leftist SUNY Chancellor, John King Had this to say:
“Exposure to, and understanding of, diversity is essential to success in our modern society and economy. As a leader in preparing the future workforce and citizenry, SUNY is committed to embedding diversity into the foundation of all it does, from academics to campus life and everything in between. By recognizing and celebrating our diversity and fostering respectful dialogue and debate, SUNY provides students with the world-class education they deserve.”
Tolerance is a good thing, but we are being asked to tolerate the intolerable.
A society that believes that everything is acceptable will crumble under the weight of not recognizing that it isn’t.