 |
| Texas Longhorns |
I have never considered politics as a serious career option. I have always held an optimistic view of what public servants can accomplish and given my diverse background, I’ve always thought I could add something to the public sphere. I am an agnostic with a Mormon family and Hindu in-laws; respecting religious differences is a part of my day-to-day life. I understand what it means to worry about paying for college and what it means to grow up in a family without money or connections. Watching my husband – a very remarkable individual – navigate the murky immigration system of this country has given me a deeper sympathy for the realities of immigrant life. I have a deep respect for education; I believe no individual should be held back from pursuing educational opportunities because of an inability to pay. I am a wife, a daughter, a neighbor, an intellectual, and a dreamer. I am, at my core, an American; I believe that people should be given the opportunities to work hard and succeed in life. However, there is the reality of being elected; I have never considered myself to be a serious candidate for public office.
Why then, does it hurt so much to
find out that the state I live in has a clause in their state constitution that
bans a person like me – a nontheist – from holding public office? Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution states “No religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in
this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his
religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
So, in theory, if I were to run for
public office in Texas and win, I would be required to acknowledge the presence
of a Supreme Being. I am an agnostic; I
don’t know if there is a higher power or not. I do, however, believe that lying is
wrong. I cannot see myself acknowledging
something that I do not believe to be true.
In my mind, that is a lie.
Throughout my life, there have been
many obstacles to becoming the person that I am today. As a girl being raised in the Mormon faith, I
was told not to dream of higher education or a career; as a woman, becoming a
mother and a housewife was my duty in life.
As someone who decided to leave the Mormon Church, I ran up against the many
prejudices against people who make the decision to leave. As the seventh child in a lower middle class
family, I had to fight to make it through college without financial assistance
from my parents. This fight was ultimately
successful through a combination of hard work and the generosity of
scholarships.
For every road-block in life, there
was a solution available to me. I spent
a lot of time thinking about who I was and what I believed in; when I figured out
the answer, I acted in a manner that was true to who I am as a person, in spite
of the negative consequences. But never,
in all of my years, have I come up against a law that specifically bans someone
of my beliefs from a career choice. And
that is what hurts the most; that the state I have chosen to reside in has taken
the official stance that, as a non-theist, I am not capable or worthy of
holding public office.
I may never be in a position where
this law becomes an issue. However, I
can verify that there are many other non-theists out there who can contribute
to the public sphere in a valuable and lasting manner. Why is my state banning them from holding public
office?
Wow! I am in shock.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of things about Texas, mostly weather and politics, that I have never even considered living there. Scott's experience living there as a teenager only has reinforced that. Even with all of my objections to personally living there, I never would have thought that the discrimination would be that codified.
If I was you, I don't know if I would leave, or stay and fight. I guess it would depend on how much I loved the rest of the culture.
Wow. Still in shock.
I am in a bit of shock as well - I just found out about this last week. And it is not a pleasant feeling.
DeleteI am also astounded. A few years ago I know that Oregon finally removed some of its antiquated laws from the books - things like laws that excluded Blacks from Oregon, etc. Do you suppose this is one of those antiquated laws that has been forgotten about? Or do they really still enforce this? I'm surprised that it's even constitutional.
ReplyDeleteI don't know - I'm looking into it. But given the political climate in Texas, my best guess is that this is a law that no one cares about, as the probability of a non-theist getting elected is slim to none.
DeleteThere are all kinds of crazy laws on the TX books. In addition to being a recovering Mormon, I'm also a recovering Texan - I'm a native Californian but lived in Dallas for 17 years. I feel your pain. :)
ReplyDeleteI forgot that you used to live in Texas - I guess you are all too familiar with the Texas crazy.
Delete"I have a deep respect for education; I believe no individual should be held back from pursuing educational opportunities because of an inability to pay."
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with the first sentiment, I cant with the second. If someone is unable to pay for service, but the service provider is forced to give it away for free, how is that any different from slavery?
I never said that I thought educational institutions should be forced to give away their services for free, just that students shouldn't be disqualified from their studies because they cannot pay.
DeleteAs a public educator (high school English teacher), I submit that the differences between public education and slavery are vast. I suppose I might feel differently if I were forced to be a high school teacher without compensation, but I have a difficult time even imagining that scenario. A long and cherished tradition of free public education exists in all 50 states. I firmly believe that our system of public education is critical to maintaining a democratic society, and it is therefore part of our social contract to contribute as a community to make that opportunity available to all children, without having to resort to slavery. Yes, we pay taxes. It's our way to contribute for the privilege of living in this society.
DeleteThat sounds like a definition without a distinction
DeleteEducation needs a major overhaul.
ReplyDeleteI'd reduce the federal Dept of education to one part time employee paid no more than $1000 a year to recomend key courses and subjects to be studied .
I'd reduce the state Department of education to three employees.
#1 one part time employee paid no more than $1000 a year to recomend key courses and subjects to be studied
#2 One paid minimum wage to call every school in the state and find if they are complying with the recomendations
#3 One paid minimum wage to build, and mail signs saying "This school refuses to teach your children the information they need to hold a job" to those schools which do not follow recomended guidlines
As far as salaries go, I'd make it so no district level administrative employee can make more than 75% of the LOWEST paid teacher in the state. No school level administrative employee can make more than 85% of the lowest paid teacher in the state.
Free schooling until 15, or grade nine, which ever comes first. If you have the grades that you are worth further investment free until 20(associates degree) with a year by year evaluation.
If you arent worth the investment two choices, pay for it yourself - and if you turn out to be worth the investment you will be reimbursed, or quit school and join a trade.
To lujlp - I wish I could invite you to my classroom to share something of public education at the high school level today. So much in the media gives an incorrect impression of our work. Too many "soundbites" about education, in my informed opinion. I do NOT want to send any of my students out into the 21st century with the kind of education your post seems to describe. But we digress from PMG's post subject...so I'm happy to "agree to disagree" and wish you well. Kathy :)
ReplyDeleteSorry, I dont respond to appeals to authority. I dont need to see your class room, I remember well the ones I was in. I was held back in math because the higher class already had 'too many' students in it.
DeleteIt was far more important for the school to have 15 8th grade D level students in geometry passed on up from their 7th D level algebra 1 course than it was to place on 7th grader in the geometry. God forbid you acctually fail people for failing the class and let those who want to learn excel.
I also recall my high school history class where the dumb as a rock teacher pet got an A for her paper on Pocohantas(based solely on the Disney film) while the class trouble maker and I got D's(until we complained to the principle) for our papers on the Trail of Tears, an mine on Columbus and his human rights abuses outstripping Hitler.
Trust me, I know how schools work. Not well puts it mildly. And playing to the lowest common denominator to keep slackers around to the detriment of those who could achive so much more does no one any favors
I don't know where you went to school, but that doesn't sound like my educational experience. It may be your education was like that, but I don't see why those experiences would make you think that the solution (as you stated in your previous comment) is getting rid of the education department. So was your experience so bad that you think we shouldn't have public education at all?
DeleteWhere did I say ax public ed?
DeleteLets turn this around, name one vital indespensible function preformed by the federal dept of education?
My state has a similar law, and it infuriates me. Believer or nonbeliever, we're all Americans and we all have the right to participate in the political scene.
ReplyDeleteIt is infuriating. And demeaning. I really hope we can fix this.
DeleteWow! I had no idea that such laws still exist. Can't be constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThere are a total of seven states that have these laws. I think the problem is that you have to be elected to a public office to challenge the law and no one wants to make a fuss, especially when there is such a stigma against atheism.
Delete