_y0Oww.jpg)
Patriotism 101: Redefining Patriotism for the 21st Century
Part 2: The Big Picture
Most Americans live the largest part of their lives within a relatively small radius from their homes. While it’s true that we’re a highly mobile society, and we do consider distances in a much different light than our European neighbors, the average American spends a majority of his or her life within a 20 mile radius of home.
If you’re like me, you can probably feel it. You’re driving back from vacation, or a business meeting, and suddenly you feel as if you’ve crossed an invisible line — you’re in “home territory”. It’s familiar. It’s comfortable. We’re safe because we know where the best Chinese Restaurant is, and it’s just up the street.
As Americans, we are involved; we debate the importance of new storm drains with our neighbors, and dispute the calls at our local High School football games. We worry about crime in our communities and our neighborhoods, we worry about Emergency vehicle response times, locations of fire hydrants, and dog licenses — all of which are part of living in a community. It’s the same whether it’s in the heart of the Big Apple, or somewhere in Faulkner’s Mississippi.
The point I’m coming to in a roundabout way, is that it is easy for us to become focused on those (usually local) issues and affairs that bear directly on our day-to-day life. We hear state and national news, and we follow along with the sound bites. We’re usually aware of what is going on at some level, but unless it is something major — or something that is likely to increase taxes, we usually don’t sense the impact on our life as acutely as those local concerns.
So, does it really matter when a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana refuses to issue a marriage license to a mixed race couple, or the Texas Board of Education takes up the issue of Creationism versus Evolution in a Public School System?
The simple answer is yes; these are important issues that you should be concerned with. While it may be true that you aren’t a resident of either state, you didn’t vote for the individuals making the decisions, don’t plan on getting married in Louisiana and don’t have kids in school in Texas, both issues are directly related to your own Constitutional rights.
— Martin Luther King, Jr.
With regard to the first case, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out any racially-based limitations on marriage in the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case. In the unanimous decision, the court said that “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” In that case, the court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The ongoing debate between Fundamentalist Christians and the Scientific Community regarding the teaching of Evolution versus Creationism in Public Schools has been raging since the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925.
This question is directly related to the Principle of Separation of Church and State, and the extent to which religious doctrine should be permitted within Public School curriculum.
In 1987, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, a split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required public schools teaching evolution to also teach creationism. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The Court found that although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to “protect academic freedom,” that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state’s proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a “preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute.”
In spite of this, dissenting judges included the statement:
The addition of this verbiage to the ruling left the door open to possible future challenges. Within months “creationism” evolved into the ’scientific theory’ of “intelligent design” and former advocates for the teaching of creationism had evolved along with it, now pushing for the inclusion of intelligent design in Public School curriculum. A rose by any other name.
Just as tiny pebbles can start a great avalanche, these events have the potential to permit individuals or groups with an unconstitutional agenda to gain a toehold whereby the rights of all can be subjugated to the will of a few.
When I use the term “unconstitutional agenda” it isn’t my intent to imply that such an agenda is by necessity “evil” or “wrong”; only that the agenda runs contrary to the current interpretation of the Constitution. Such agenda typically forward the interests of a limited subset of the entire population. Not infrequently, such agenda are sponsored by well organized, well funded groups who have the political savvy to utilize lobbyists and to mount national campaigns in support of their ideals; this is their right! If they want to force a debate on the interpretation of the Constitution, they have the right — and in many cases, the ability to do so.
In absence of a strong national movement opposing such unconstitutional agenda, there is always a possibility that new laws could be enacted, or old laws revised or overturned. This is why we have to make an effort to see the big picture whenever these issues arise. If we fail to speak out and make ourselves heard, who will we blame when we lose those rights that we enjoy today? It turns out that these issues aren’t someone else’s problem after all — as Americans, they are our own.
The opinions expressed are entirely my own, and I take full responsibility for them. If you are offended or disagree with my opinions, thoughtful commentary or criticism are welcome. — David A. Hester
Portions of the above article excerpted from Wikipedia.org, and republished here under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.
