Constitutionalism Swayed by Religious Culture

As Americas, we take part in a huge balancing act between upholding religious values and maintaining freedom through the separation of church and state. There are laws that protect us from a theocracy and the First Amendment grants us freedom of and from religion. But because the majority of Americans call themselves religious, religious beliefs do affect our culture, particularly through the American education system. America’s religious beliefs shape many aspects of American life such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the pressure of creationism to be taught in school, and abstinence being taught in schools as opposed to safe sex.
The United States’ Pledge of Allegiance has undergone small yet very significant changes through the history of its existence due to the conflict of religion’s role in American government. When Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister, wrote the pledge of allegiance in 1892, he wrote “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” (Independence Hall Assn.). Over a century later we say our pledge with these words: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." During the Red Scare President Eisenhower persuaded Congress to add the words “under God” in 1954 (Independence Hall Assn.). The argument for the change was the name “God” does not discriminate between Jesus, Allah, or Buda. On the other hand, it does ignore and discriminate against America’s atheist population. So the paradox is that America, a nation with “complete” separation between church and state, is also “one nation, under God.” Freedom of religion and religious expression includes the right of an individual to choose to have no religious affiliation and to refuse the expression of any form of religion. Though the words “under God” may not be completely constitutional, I believe that taking them out would be a drastic change that the American government is not equipped to handle easily. This change to the Pledge would be strongly opposed by religious groups and may create an uproar that the American government does not want to deal with.
Public schools in America today are bombarded by the controversy of whether abstinence or safe sex should be taught in sex education and health classes. The strongest supporters of the teaching of sole abstinence without the information about safe sex are religiously affiliated groups. It is common knowledge that most dominant, modern religions in America oppose pre-marital sex. Religious values are imposed by parents and school authorities who believe that students would be better off without the knowledge of condoms, the pill, and STD testing. Many parents think that kids who are taught only abstinence will be less likely to have sex, while teaching safe sex will encourage kids to have sex. Others believe that teaching safe sex in addition to the option of abstinence is a better way to keep young Americans aware of their options and surrounding reality. The reality is that American teenagers do engage in sexual activity and safe sex does help prevent against STDs. With STDs, such as AIDS, affecting the lives of many people, realists attempt to warn young Americans and teach them ways of STD prevention. Stubborn parents who are trying to uphold religious values by withholding facts about safe sex from children may be jeopardizing the safety of sexually active teenagers.
Though it is illegal to teach creationism in public schools, many religious groups are pressing for creationism to be taught alongside evolutionism or instead of evolutionism. Creationism is the belief that follows the story of the Bible in which God created Earth and the humans, plants and animals that inhabit it. Creationism is not based on scientific research or discovery, merely religious beliefs. Since schools are run by state government, the material they teach is supposed to be inclusive of all religions and all non-religious people. Evolution is a highly acclaimed scientific theory that is based on much scientific research. In August of 1999 ABCNEWS.com quoted The Gallup Organization’s results on the public’s opinion of creationism and evolutionism being taught in schools. According to these results, forty percent of people are in favor of teaching creationism instead of evolutionism (Robinson). Hypothetically, if American public schools taught creationism rather than evolutionism, our school system would be slightly theocratic. Though it might be a lost cause, many extreme religious groups are pressing for schools to teach creationism, regardless of its interference with freedom of religion.
Though America is a republic democracy that is far from a theocracy, American people are largely religious. A religion not only affects the life of the individual but it shapes a national American culture. Religious values of America as a whole seep into the school systems through the Pledge of Allegiance, sex education and de-emphasis of evolution. Though the laws that construct the way Americans live are based on the Constitution, they are swayed by American culture to fit into a religious America.
“The Pledge of Allegiance.” n. p. Independence Hall Assn. 1995-2007. n. pag. 11 Dec. 2007
Robinson, B. A. The Origin of the Earth and of Animal Species: Recent Evolution/Creationism Conflicts in U.S. Public Schools. Adapt. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 11 Dec. 2007.

Elements of Success

Celebrities residing in Hollywood are those who we as Americans care about, read about and talk about. We idolize our celebrities and look at their lives as being successful. Although I dearly want to be successful in life, I do not see success to necessarily be the life of a celebrity. Universally there are three elements of success which apply to all ideas of success: beauty, wealth, and power. However, the picture of success changes based on opinion because of the way in which we define the elements of beauty, wealth and power.
Hollywood’s illustration of beauty captures youth and sex appeal; conversely, I personally see beauty as health and moral integrity. With increasing commonality of Botox injections and plastic surgery, Hollywood stars are spending thousands of dollars to retain a sexy, youthful look. Women who are well into their fifties and older strive for sex appeal. Wrinkled faces are rarely seen on tabloids. It seems as though celebrities fall off the map when they are no longer young and beautiful. One is successful in Hollywood as long as one is beautiful. However, regardless of exposure to the media, I was brought up to believe that beauty comes from the inside, hence moral integrity and physical and mental health. A successful person does attain a certain aspect of beauty that encompasses ideals like self-respect and genuine goodwill towards others. One does not need to have a fashion model body type to be successful. One person that I think captures the beauty element of success is Eleanor Roosevelt. She does not meet the expectations of a Hollywood celebrity, but I think she is a beautifully successful person because she valued principles and worked hard for the betterment of others.
Another fundamental element of success is wealth, which can be defined multiple ways. Hollywood defines success in wealth as having a plethora of money and a collection of material objects. On the other hand, I define success in wealth as being first, financially comfortable and second an investment in friendships. As seen in the show “Cribs,” Hollywood stars flaunt their success of wealth by buying things. Whether it is ten cars, 3 houses or top dollar fashion, successful celebrities regularly look rich. In my opinion it is important for a successful person to have enough money so that he or she, and in some cases that person’s family, is comfortable. Financial comfort means having money to pay essential bills and a moderate amount of luxury. Nevertheless, if one has all the money in the world and no love or no friend, one is not successfully wealthy. To me, success requires more than the material aspect of wealth. When I am rich in friendships, I am wealthy.
The third and final universal element of success is power. In Hollywood, to be successfully powerful, you must have fame. Fame is key to all celebrities, because fame gives you power over other people. The voice of a celebrity is much more powerful and well heard than that of the average American citizen. Hollywood stars often have disturbing power over the law, such as when Paris Hilton was quickly released from jail after being arrested for driving under the intoxication of alcohol. I say power is being able to coherently contribute to one’s community whether it global, national, or local. To be successfully powerful, one must have the ability of self-mastery, which is the power to achieve personal goals through self-discipline and determination. I believe this is the most important element to success. Someone can have goals and dreams of success but unless they have the power inside themselves to reach their goals, they cannot be successful. Self-mastery also requires courage, which is imperative to success. Fame and courage are significantly different and yet both are seen to be the need to be successfully powerful.
Though the ideals of success remain universal, each of us sees success differently because of the different ways we define beauty, wealth and power. In the media Hollywood stars are said to be successful when they have youth, sex appeal, a surplus of money, and fame. When I think of a successful person I think of someone with the qualities of moral integrity, financial comfort, good relationships, and self-mastery. Whether Hollywood’s material centered idea of success is detrimental to our society, I do not know. I do however encourage everyone to define success for themselves and not take the cookie cutter version Hollywood portrays as the only way to make him or her happy.

Money and Learning in Schools

Lack of school funding does not affect a child’s ability to get an education, but it does require students to create their own opportunities for success. Though library books may be falling apart and yellowed by age, if there is a library, one can read. Schools in wealthy areas are given a lot of money by the government and therefore are able to provide students with a plethora of opportunities, such as a band, theater group or swimming team. However, many underprivileged schools do not offer these kinds of activities, simply because they cannot afford them. Though opportunities are often spoon-fed at well-funded schools in wealthy areas, every person, regardless of race, sex, or wealth, can create opportunities for his or herself to learn. The amount of money put into a child’s education does not determine his or her innate human intelligence, and therefore ability to learn.

Though some people believe that in order to get a high paying job you have to have a top dollar education, I will prove that it is a false idea. Considering the case of Malcolm X, who taught himself to read by copying a dictionary in his prison cell, the will to learn seems to be more important than the presentation on the lesson. As long as someone is presented with basic learning tools, such as books, paper and pencils, one can read and write. School funding has to do with the taxes a community pays. The children of people paying higher taxes have better learning benefits from the government. Those that do not pay high taxes in regards to their income do not get as many financial benefits in their education. In this way a student with wealthy parents, is more likely to be presented with better and more educational opportunities. This appears to be a cause and effect situation because you would think that better educational opportunities will result in smarter, more adept students. My conclusion is that this is far from true.

To rise above a low financial situation takes hard work; a student in an underfunded school must create opportunities that are handed to students in wealthier areas. Most people do not have a dying will to learn to read and write and do math and learn to work computers and science and history. This is why I believe that most people that are born into poverty stay in poverty. The government takes money from its tax payers and makes schools a comfortable place to be. They hire qualified teachers; provide clean workspaces, cafeterias and bathrooms; and they keep supplies such as books, desks and computers updated so the children can keep up with our changing and modernizing society. Unfortunately for many schools this is not the case. Uncertified teachers are hired when a school cannot afford to hire certified ones. Schools cannot provide basic supplies for students needs such as toilet paper, which I have experienced in my time at a public high school. Information on noteworthy diseases, historic events, and many other new findings has yet to be available in libraries. I believe that until a person, especially a child, knows the benefits of having an education, and the opportunities it opens up he or she may be resistant to putting in the hard work it would take to receive a quality education.

Children need to be coaxed into some learning by a little entertainment and creativity. For most of us, all we want to do is have fun. But if we realize that learning and fun share the common goal of happiness, we will be more inspired to seek fun opportunities in the future by getting an education now. For instance, in the movie Stand and Deliver, Mr. Escalante is the catalyst that inspires his students, who live in a very poor community and are not expected to rise above their financial situation, to educate themselves. At the beginning of the movie, none of the high school students planned on learning anything in math. There was an agreement between a few people to refuse to take a quiz and multiple students cut class for no reason. At the sound of the bell there was urgency to bolt out of the classroom, as is seen in the scene where someone rigged the bells to ring too early. After Mr. Escalante encouraged the class to learn, by showing them a slight bit of their potential, the students made a sizeable effort to attend class and learn what Mr. Escalante was teaching. After this point, the students went so far as to attend summer classes for long hours in dripping heat. Through Mr. Escalante’s dedication, the students have been persuaded to have a desire to learn.

Often times younger people do not thin ahead to how their present actions will affect their futures. Unfortunately some schools do a less that sufficient job of presenting knowledge of different possibilities for a student’s future, i.e. a broad range of careers or a college education. Though a school may be less than adequate because of a lack of government funding, a person’s ability to learn has to do with their own proactive initiative. To be cliché, their future is in their own hands.

Personal Experience with Religion

To be perfectly and dreadfully honest I do not wish to post a blog on a personal religious experience, although I have had many. I would not think twice of speaking publicly on my views of political affairs or any of the other controversial topics we have thus far covered in this class. But in this setting, a classroom of very different people and the World Wide Web, where anyone with internet access could possibly find my small collection of written work, I feel as though I am bound to my writing, and can and will be judged upon its content. Though what I write comes from the heart, or somewhere around there, I am still learning. My views are not set in stone. The curious thing is that more than any other thing, I would hate to say something wrong or misleading that has to do with religion. I am not emotionally or spiritually up to the task of sharing a personal experience with religion at the moment. And I would try but as this is for a grade and with a deadline: all I can say is that I will work on putting up a blog with a real experience but for now, I give my regrets to all who read this.

Details in a Photograph by Bill Wittliff

A seemingly old and uneventful porch of a bar is lit up by a fair haired woman sitting in front of a window. The porch is not dirty, making it look slightly set up. Horizontal wooden slats of different shades are her background and thick wood boards are her foundation. The window is divided into four panes; the top two, smaller, each hold a single word to spell out the name “Dry Bean” in fading white paint. The woman is young, and looks lonely until you catch on to her head cocked to the right, and as the light hits her chin, jaw line, and the side of her neck, there relaxed and slightly playful attitude. Her right shoulder is lifted to meet the side of her face as a resting place.

Long ruffled and lacey fabric drapes over her torso in a deep “V” shape down to her navel. The same old-fashion looking ruffles weigh down the ends of her three-quarter sleeves, which are pushed indifferently to different places on her arms. A patterned calico fabric is the main part of the dress; the pattern is polka-dotted and seemingly floral. By the way the calico fabric lies naturally with waves and wrinkles it is feminine but obviously cheap and thin. Although she’s wearing a dress her legs are spread apart, and her hands lie on her knees pulling the fabric slightly upward. Because of the perception of the photograph, her hands seem proportionally larger than average; her right hand is definitely dominant. Stout working fingers look almost grubby as they cast small dark shadows on the clean dress.

Going downwards, white knees are followed closely by even whiter socks and then dark black boots, laced up several inches past her ankles. The toes of the boots are scuffed and scratched different shades of gray. Only the outer edges of her boots touch the ground. Her legs open up to a “V” shape, but the left leg is pulled farther from center than the right. The inside of her left calf catches the light.

Her face is plain but pretty. Her eyes look straight into the camera but do not stare. Dark brows and lashes strengthen her face. Her mouth, untouched by make-up, softly compliments her face. A tiny shadow on the left by her top lip hints at a knowing smile. Defined cheekbones feminize her face. A mane of sandy blonde hair frames her face. Her hair holds a bounce and wave that can be seen in magazines on the heads of supermodels. But her hair is not pretentious; it is cut to short lengths of thick wisps that are easily pushed back with fingers behind the ear, or tossed back with a small, precise jerk of the head.

Behind the young woman is a shadow that is not her own. It seems to be coming from inside the building and reveals a clashing and outdated pattern of a darkening curtain. The shadow is an odd shape. On her left side is an edgy dark object that seems like a chimney pipe. It extends upwards on her left to a rounded top. The object making the shadow is inconsequential but the shadow itself contrasts the woman’s fair pale skin, hair and dress.

In the upper right corner of the photograph a small wooden sign takes its place in this art. It reads “LAGER BEER” in hand-painted white letters. The function of this sign is to draw away from the symmetry the four pained window imposes. The word “beer” relaxes the picture to a scene of a bar’s porch. It allows the woman the freedom to sit so “unladylike,” though her eyes tell us that she is not even slightly buzzed.

The Effectiveness of the Definition of a Word

In class Thursday, September 28th, a question came up about the effectiveness of using a word’s definition in a paper. To some people, a definition may seem redundant and pointless. And sure, some words just don’t need to be defined. But if you look at how a word is defined and by whom, a definition may become more important. In my experience, that which is hardest to define has the most important definition. I found this quote on my friend’s AIM buddy profile, so my source is worthy of skepticism; regardless I love the quote.

Despite all the hard scientific knowledge we have accumulated, the heart still retains its mythic, metaphoric role as the bodily center of courage and love...
A living heart "is...the pulsing energy that is the essence of all life, whether atoms and electrons or two people making love or the whole universe expanding and contracting. It's the vital force. It's life itself."
-George Leonard

A dictionary, a child, or a biologist would all have different definitions of the heart. A dictionary definition is not necessarily meaningful, but they way each of us personally define something is crucial. When considering the English language, the power of certain words amazes me. Throughout history terms like “gay” or “Jewish” have gone through an immense variety of meanings. Both have had deadly connotations. Conversely, they both have beautiful connotations to certain people. When words have a wide gap in possible meanings, a definition can be used to see past bias. With so many meanings to each word, I think that if in a paper, one decides to look at only one meaning of a word, that definition is valuable information, and in many cases a effective element to an essay.

How Do They Define "Gay"?

Images from the following websites:
http://haste-network.net/movies-76/i-now-pronounce-you-chuck-larry-3205.html
http://www.tomalberts.com/galleries/gaypride2006/gay_pride_balloons.php
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2007/04/12/index.html
http://www.mickeyz.net/news/mickeyz/fullarticle/my_gay_marriage_question/
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/movieawards/oscars/2007-02-26-parties_x.htm
http://blogs.menupages.com/boston/2007/06/

http://www.dormgear.net/tin-signs-c-46.html?osCsid=cb92a

Norman Rockwell and The Spirit of Education

Norman Rockwell’s painting “The Spirit of Education” depicts a smiling white woman behind a blonde boy. The woman is holding a sash across his chest with the words: THE SPIRIT OF EDUCATION. The woman sits behind the boy and next to them is a chest, topped with an open box; she seems to be dressing him. He is clad in a toga, sandals, and a laurel crown. A torch lies lazily in one hand and a large book is held in the other. The boy’s brow is furrowed and he wears a very displeased look on his face.

What is Norman Rockwell saying about education? Why the disgruntled boy or the nearly synthetic smile on the woman who seems to glorify him?

The way I see it is the woman is like the government and teachers and school officials who want to glorify education. They do not see that the children/students are nonetheless unreceptive and unappreciative. Students do not like to be made to look like they care. The students’ apathetic attitude toward education mocks people who work hard on making it possible. She dresses him in a white garment to represent innocence. The torch is for liberty. The thick book shows knowledge and dedication. Rockwell tells us the spirit of education is made to look pure and innocent, having the qualities of wisdom, freedom and goodness, but in reality it is flawed and discontented. The government dresses up the spirit of education to look better than it is so that they may receive approval of the public and the respect of other countries.


I did a little research on Norman Rockwell's paintings. This is my favorite of his paintings. It's called Doctor and the Doll. (Isn't Google Images wonderful?)