Posted on 02/28/2003 11:57:33 AM PST by k2blader
'In God We Trust' Passes Panel Scrutiny
By David Robinson
LITTLE ROCK — After a testy exchange between lawmakers, a House panel narrowly recommended a measure Thursday that would change a law so that schools “shall” allow the posting of “in God we trust.”
Under existing law, schools “may” allow such postings, which means they also may not, said Sen. Denny Altes, R-Fort Smith. His Senate Bill 57 would change the law to say schools “shall” allow that and other postings.
The bill was pitched by Altes as a patriotic measure because it allows teachers and principals to pick slogans or phrases for display from documents or speeches in American history.
Opponents said they fear the choices available would allow postings that are offensive or hurtful.
“The totality of the writings, speeches, documents and proclamations of this period was from a period of racism to some extent,” said Rep. Linda Chesterfield, D-Little Rock. “Being that anybody can put any of that up there, some of that stuff was very hateful. So I’m going to have a problem with it.”
She noted that the nation’s founding fathers established that blacks were three-fifths of a white person and that slavery was something that should be part of the constitution.
“I want them to be exposed to it because it’s part of teaching, but I don’t think it ought to be posted up there as something that we ought to be very proud of,” Chesterfield said.
“I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware of any of that,” Altes replied. “All I’m aware of is that these are items of history.”
“Well, everything in history is not good,” Chesterfield said.
Rep. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, said that despite its patriotic flavor, the bill’s religious component conflicts with the constitutional separation of church and state.
Even the nation’s motto, she said, “is sometimes even demeaning to people who happen not to be a part of the majority that maybe you and I are a part of.
“If we wanted to post in our schools the motto ‘in God we trust,’ is that not a declaration of a religious belief, and why should we do that when we have our churches, our synagogues and our temples?” Elliott said.
“This is our national motto,” Altes said. “I think that if these other people from other foreign countries don’t like our national motto then they should seek another country.”
Said Elliott: “That’s the kind of thing I work so hard to teach my students — not to espouse that because you don’t like something that you are not part of this country.”
“We spend time in our schools trying to teach our kids about the separation of church and state and respect for everybody, even if that person happens to be an atheist, and say ‘This is a place about learning about our American history and the way you carry out your religious beliefs and the way you declare them is a personal thing.’
“Why do we have to push it in the faces of people if we’re comfortable with our own religions and our own heritage,” she said. “Why do that?”
Altes replied that his bill is not about religion. “I think we’re talking about our national motto, the foundation upon which our nation was formed,” he said. “This is history, this is American heritage and it’s not religion.”
The number of House Education Committee members voting for and against the bill sounded about the same, but the chairman ruled that it would advance to the House with a do-pass recommendation. None of the measure’s opponents asked for a roll call vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.