Putting Religion in its Place; Outside of Education

Should religion and bible studies be incorporated into the curriculum in Texas high schools? My answer to this is an emphatic NO. I am not a religious person, and do not believe in god, but that is not the only reason that I agree with Jenny Tran's views in her commentary, "New Bible Requirement Hits Texas Schools This Fall," in which she discusses the issue of recent legislation requiring bible courses in Texas high schools.

Jenny pointedly disagreed with arguments made by teachers and politicians that say that in order to fully understand history and literature, children must also have biblical knowledge. While I admit that history is chock full of references to religion as the cause for many events, such as the surge of immigration to the United States in the early 1900's by Europeans who were fleeing religious persecution, but this does not mean that I need to be able to recite the ten commandments by memory. I believe that the important facts and knowledge regarding our country's past and that of the world can be easily understood without deep religious or biblical knowledge.

As Jenny says, "I'm not against religions that intertwine with the Bible but I believe schools shouldn't have Bible classes because religion is such a personal and culturally touchy topic." She points out an important aspect of this issue, which is the extremely controversial and broad associations that people have with religion. What I struggle to understand is exactly how teachers are going to go about explaining the importance and truth of the bible to their Jewish, Buddhist, and atheist students. Why is it that these students should be forced to learn about something that they may not subscribe to by belief or morals? There is an extremely fine line between teaching facts about the bible and its interplay into history and literature and promoting the beliefs that it preaches. If we really want to be fair and politically correct, then high schools should also be required to teach the writings of the Koran, the Torah, and all other religious documents because each religion has an important place in history.

To me, religion and the bible are completely subjective things because to some they are fact and a way of life, when to me they are simply creations of men who fear death. Obviously, I have specific opinions regarding religion that would have been opposed by the teachings of the bible in school. I think that there are a lot of people like me who would not stand for this in a public curriculum. At least not for long. I went through four years of high school and learned quite a lot about history and literature, and continued studying the topics into college. At no point was the bible discussed, and I feel that I am perfectly knowledgeable about both subjects and would be no better off had I had biblical teachings.

Finally, our first amendment gives us the right to freedom of religion, meaning that we can choose to practice (or not) whichever religion we want. I stress the OR NOT portion of this because I think that it is the part that is violated when schools introduce religion into their courses. I agree with Jenny's opinion that school and religion do not mix, and think that she brought up good points in arguing for this stance. The use of quotes and facts regarding the legislation helped me, the reader, get a good idea about how this issue came about and what its status is in our state. Hopefully, parents and legislators will form a large opposition to this law and remove all religion from public high schools in Texas, and soon.

Lack of Voting = Lack of Democracy

Every time there is an important election held, the candidates make a huge effort to appeal specifically to the youngest voting age group and to get them out to vote, which something they do less than any other age group. In the past two elections the percentage voter turnout amongst 18-24 year olds was 47 and 49 percent respectively. Considering the effect that 50 percent of all 18-24 year olds could make in the election, this is quite pathetic. Why is it that such a large percentage of this age group are not voting? I believe that laziness and political apathy are among the most prevalent reasons for the lack of young voters. It doesn't seem like it, but there are definitely going to be consequences for this trend should voters continue to ignore the polls.

I am focusing on youth voters due to the fact that habits form early and hard to break, so if they don't vote early in their lives there is a good chance that they won't start to do it later. Obviously, if young voters are underrepresented in the polls, then their collected majority opinion will not be recognized or have an affect on the outcome of the election to the degree that it could, and should. A democracy is a government run by the people and based on the majority rule. If a significant group of those people are not reporting on their opinions and desires, then the government is not a comprehensive and complete democracy. This is why it is particularly irksome when I hear my peers complain about our leaders and their decisions when they did not take the time to vote for the candidate that they would rather have had won. It isn't as if one or two votes is going to tip the election one way or another, however it is a start. If one becomes two, becomes, seven, becomes one hundred thousand voters and beyond, things could inch their way towards a more representative election outcome.

Candidates have been reaching out to the youth voters more than ever in the past few elections which has a smaller effect than was hoped. I think that it isn't something that can be changed by making it a trend or by giving people incentives, rather it needs to be a shift in how our country and youth view government. At this point I am not making a proposal as to how to make this shift, but I think it is worth a lot of thought by the media, public officials, and parents who all have an influence on our children's attitude formation regarding politics, our government, and their role in it.

Too Quick to Judge

In her commentary blog post, Heather (Heather's Political Corner), writes about the recent proposals for government health care reforms in the United States. The proposed plan would provide a government funded option for people to get health care services regardless of income, homelessness, or unemployment. It is based on the idea that access to quality health care is a basic human right, and that in an upper class society like ours, we have the ability to provide this right to all of our citizens.
Heather was quick to dismiss the idea as "too good to be true" and stated that while it was intended to be affordable and government funded, we would be taxed in order to pay for it. In my opinion, Heather is not very informed about the particulars of the health care plans that have gained prominence amongst legislators. She seems to be unaware of the fact that it would not be a complete end to private health care, and that citizens would still be able to choose alternative providers, including those programs offered through their employers, at their own discretion.
I think that any argument requires convincing and trustworthy sources and support in order to carry any weight, and that is something that her judgments are clearly lacking. She seems to have bought into the disinformation that is circulating regarding this issue. Heather seems to think that the proposed plans for government health care are going to set up a socialist system where everyone has one equal option; the government provided plan. However, this is not the case at all.
I don't find her commentary all that informative because it seems like her opinion is all that she is giving to her readers. One of the options that has been proposed is known as single-payer health care, and is nothing like the socialist government program that Heather is condemning. I don't disrespect her opinion, rather I feel that if she had developed her argument using quotes from experts on the subject or article links to reputable sources, she would have been more persuasive in her argument against government health care options.
Overall, I think that the benefits of a government supported health care option, such as single-payer health care plans, outweigh the possible negative consequences such as a slight increase in taxes. Just one glance at the number of private bankruptcies due to the inability of citizens to pay mounting medical bills is enough for me to agree that something, including government intervention, needs to be done to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable and quality health care.