
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my supervisor after our department meeting. (I work for a department in the university which certifies principals and superintendents by the way.) She mentioned that because our program is an online program, she has discovered that quite a few of the students are in really far out there districts. I casually asked what makes these remote districts any different than the more urban districts? Well she said that in her School Law course, she routinely encounters students who work for districts that are just outright breaking the law. Of course I hear this, and I am horrified. What type of criminal action is going on in these schools? Embezzlement? Falsification of records? What could it be? No; she said the principal will come on the intercom and lead the school students in public prayer. Really? And these are public schools?
The truth of the matter is, yes, these schools are breaking the law. But they will probably not change until someone complains (i.e. sue them). And the chances of this happening in these rural school districts is low. It is rare that these school districts even hire staff from outside of their relative area, so as long as no one complains, what is to stop them?
In spite of what the liberal media wants you to believe, the United States is still a country where a lot of the citizens believe in G-d; and this is a good thing for the Jews. This document finds that almost 70% of Americans believe in G-d. Even looking at something essentially non-religious, such as the pledge of allegiance, it has not been so easy to wipe it away from the public school presence because of the "one nation under G-d" line. And in spite of laws, many Americans feel ok breaking laws that infringe on their religious expressions (as long as they are in a "safe" environment and are not directly offending others).
This past summer, there was a blow dealt to the Orthodox Jewish community in Britain, when it refused the entry of a student whose mother did not undergo a halachaic conversion, therefore deeming the child non-Jewish. The school was accused of racial discrimination. Such a case would never fly in the United States; where we allot the respective religious movements to operate their schools however they see fit [as long as other laws are adhered to].
The thought of trying to be a Torah-observant Jew in a sea of millions of religious Christians can seem daunting. However I feel that the alternative is even more daunting. Without a doubt, our popular culture is just plain gross. The sex, the language, the values that are spoon fed to the masses is cause for real alarm. However anyone who has been to Europe (or even the Euro-wannabe Tel Aviv sadly) can tell you it is much worse there. Even when I go to Jamaica...it is pretty harrowing what you see and hear in casual conversation. However there is a force of religious Americans who are tempering the climate. In 2004, I worked for a [no defunct] company called U.S. Digital Television. They were based in Utah, but had customer in Arizona, Nevada, California, and parts of New Mexico and Colorado. There whole draw is that they produced a high definition TV receiver that only pulled in broadcast channels and local stations. Apparently there were a good number of people who wanted to see their local stations in high definition, but were not interested in the full cable package. This system fared very well among religious communities. So you cannot really say with any accuracy that the non-Jewish world is devoid of morals and values; that they are disconnected and disrespectful of G-d.


3 comments:
>Even looking at something essentially non-religious, such as the pledge of allegiance, it has not been so easy to wipe it away from the public school presence because of the "one nation under G-d" line.
You do know that line was added in the 1950s, and wasn't in the original text, right?
No I did not, really?
Yes. The Pledge actually underwent several changes after it was first composed. Francis Bellamy, the original composer, objected to a change made in the 1920s, and though he didn't live long enough to see the "under God" part added, his daughter objected to it.
For a good outline of its history, see the article in The Source of All Human Knowledge.
For an analysis of how awkwardly the phrase "under God" fits with the original text, see this essay by linguist Geoffrey Nunberg.
What I find most amusing of all is when people are accused of being "socialist" for advocating that children not be required to recite it in school. Those who make that attack are apparently unaware that the author of the Pledge was a socialist!
Post a Comment