> The American notion of "separation of church and state" refers to pluralism, not secularism
It's both. Agnostic or atheistic belief is one of the many faiths understood to be supported and protected by the separation of church and state. If a person can have faith in one god or many gods, they can have faith in none. It isn't French-style, but in a country where, for example, interracial and same-sex marriage is legal (in direct contradiction to the teachings of several religions), there are times where the state must step in to protect its citizens from having their rights stripped by organizations acting as a formal or informal arm of religion, so it can sometimes look like a state-sponsored secular faith.
The question is complicated and has gone the other way too; some religious ceremonies of native American cultures involve the use of psychedelics that are federally banned. Most Christian churches' celebrations of their covenant with God involve the imbibing of alcohol by people under the age of 21. In some cases, federal lawsuits have been involved to determine when the state is overstepping its authority to impose behavioral constraints on people.
> Our laws require equal rights and equal treatment in various contexts: government services, employment, etc. They don't say anything about "value" because in a pluralistic society people have different values.
In my mind, dignity and value are synonymous and the law definitely protects the dignity of those families. I'm unaware of a non-synonymous way to treat those terms, but if there is one I agree with your take on the law.
> "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions"
The United States has never recognized the UN's full authority over its own laws or the interpretation of same. In the case of that quote, it's sourced from the ICCPR. The ICCPR was adopted by the United States with a declaration and proviso that fundamentally give it no force of authority here (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/28885). In other words, the ICCPR is, at best, a declaration of morality and has no force of law, so if the US shares no morality or culture, you can't use it in this context to make an argument about how the US should act.
... which highlights the problem with the logic that the US shares no morality. Of course it does. We figure out what our shared morality is via the process of democratic election, debate, and construction of our law. That law reflects the shared morality of its people, which grows from our separate but overlapping faiths.
> whose culture?
The culture decided upon through the interaction of the school board and the election of the board by the people. With an overlap of the federal Department of Education. It's a complicated process, but it's there. There's definitely a culture to a school; without one, one cannot explain any proviso of any student handbook.
> pluralism requires respecting those boundaries
It absolutely does, and if a kid came home crying because their teacher told them they were living in sin with two fathers at home, that would be a major breach of trust on the part of the educator and we already have processes in place for dealing with that. But if the kid comes home crying because one of their classmates has two dads, the teacher said that's okay and the parents had told that kid it isn't? Then we have a clash of religion and the consensus culture of the country, and the school is correct in terms of its duties to teach students how to live in this country. For the law is clear, and the law is a reflection of the consensus morality. In this place, in the public square, in the streets, workplaces, and halls of government, it is okay to have two dads. This does not impinge on what one's heart says is okay.
My faith has an old saying, passed down from its prophet, which sums up this dichotomy nicely: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."
> It's both. Agnostic or atheistic belief is one of the many faiths understood to be supported and protected by the separation of church and state.
Pluralism is fundamentally different from secularism. Pluralism accommodates agnostic/atheistic beliefs as one of many protected belief systems. Secularism turns over the public sphere to agnostic/atheistic beliefs and relegates religion to a private role. In the U.S., a Muslim is a Muslim all the time--in school, when they vote, when they hold office, etc. In France, Muslims must be agnostic/atheistic in public, and can be religious in private. Thus in the U.S., banning a Muslim girl from wearing hijab would be a civil rights violation, while it's the law in France.
"Separation of church and state" thus operates fundamentally differently in the two systems. In the U.S., it means a narrow procedural framework to allow Christians and Muslims and atheists to get along. The government can't establish an official mosque. And the government can't discriminate between Muslims and Christians or play favorites. In France, by contrast, it means the creation of a parallel agnostic/atheistic belief system to govern public affairs, to which everyone must subscribe and into which children must be socialized. That's not the American system.
> It isn't French-style, but in a country where, for example, interracial and same-sex marriage is legal ... there are times where the state must step in to protect its citizens from having their rights stripped by organizations acting as a formal or informal arm of religion, so it can sometimes look like a state-sponsored secular faith.
It's important not to mistake American tolerance for shared American morality. In a pluralistic system, people can often believe that other people should be able to act according to their own conscience. That's wholly distinct from a shared secular morality or agreement about what's acceptable and not acceptable that can be taught in public schools. For example, 60% of Americans think it's immoral for teenagers to have sex, and 90% think married people having an affair is immoral, but nobody is trying to ban either. At the same time, people would probably object to teachers commenting on those issues. Muslim Americans are a stark example of the difference between tolerance and shared morality: a large majority support same-sex marriage, but virtually no mosque in America will perform one: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres....
> The ICCPR was adopted by the United States with a declaration and proviso that fundamentally give it no force of authority here (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/28885). In other words, the ICCPR is, at best, a declaration of morality and has no force of law, so if the US shares no morality or culture, you can't use it in this context to make an argument about how the US should act.
While the ICCPR is not legally binding in the U.S., religious pluralism is a fundamental right in our Constitution. The ICCPR is an important and widely adopted articulation of what religious freedom means and how it should operate. In that understanding, freedom to socialize your children in your own moral and religious beliefs is a core principle.
> The culture decided upon through the interaction of the school board and the election of the board by the people. With an overlap of the federal Department of Education. It's a complicated process, but it's there.
I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the organic statutes of these entities giving these bodies the power to declare and evangelize a "shared culture" or "consensus morality." This attitude also confirms why the Florida law has such strong public support. Educators really do believe that they're champions of what you call this shared public morality and that it is within their ambit to socialize kids into that moral framework. That's exactly what people are afraid of.
I have to say, in all sincerity, that I respect your logical explanation of your position. You've clearly articulated where the disagreement lies.
> I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the organic statutes of these entities giving these bodies the power to declare and evangelize a "shared culture" or "consensus morality"
Children spend easily half their waking day with their educators five out of seven days a year, about eight out of twelve months. The power is there by default because the school has to have a functioning micro-society out of the immediate purview of the parents of the students. For example, classrooms can teach stealing is wrong (and enforce it via code of conduct). They're not brainwashing the youth with a belief in the value of private property and societal protection of it when they do so. Nor are they brainwashing the youth into believing in the correctness of division of labor if they hang one of these in the classroom (https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Resources-Helping-Hands-Pock...).
Similarly, if it comes up in conversation that someone has two dads, a teacher isn't brainwashing the youth when they say that's okay. It's certainly not conduct where a private lawsuit is appropriate against a person doing the job they've been entrusted with.
> That's exactly what people are afraid of.
That's an excellent concern for parents to have, and school boards are usually excited to hear feedback on the curriculum if there is a perception that students are being taught a morality that clashes with their parents'. Building a curriculum that benefits students as much as possible is a collaborative exercise.
> Children spend easily half their waking day with their educators five out of seven days a year, about eight out of twelve months. The power is there by default
That's exactly what people are worried about--schools using their monopoly over children's time and attention to exceed the scope of their mandate.
> For example, classrooms can teach stealing is wrong (and enforce it via code of conduct). They're not brainwashing the youth with a belief in the value of private property and societal protection of it when they do so. Nor are they brainwashing the youth into believing in the correctness of division of labor if they hang one of these in the classroom (https://www.amazon.com/Learning-Resources-Helping-Hands-Pock...).
That schools have the power to set and enforce rules, and explain to kids what's socially "allowed" and "not allowed"--e.g. bullying, for any reason, is not allowed--is not in dispute, and doesn't require teachers to opine on disputed moral issues.
> That's an excellent concern for parents to have, and school boards are usually excited to hear feedback on the curriculum if there is a perception that students are being taught a morality that clashes with their parents'. Building a curriculum that benefits students as much as possible is a collaborative exercise.
Public schools and parents don't "collaborate" on the moral education of children. That's squarely in the domain of parents. That's one of the basic bargains that allows pluralism to work, and a key reason why America has largely avoided the disaster with integrating Muslims that France has brought upon itself.
Again, it is impossible for schools to have no say in the moral education of children when children are spending about half their waking hours there. Children are sponges and they will learn what is right and wrong from the observation of the environment they're in; there's no realistic understanding of how children learn that indicates a way to turn that off.
So collaboration is the best-case scenario, because the alternative is a fight. I dislike that this law seems crafted to say "Yes, a fight is the correct approach." That puts children in the middle of an adversarial situation and is therefore unwise.
> Again, it is impossible for schools to have no say in the moral education of children when children are spending about half their waking hours there.
That's just an inherent tension when you combine a Constitution that guarantees robust religious pluralism with taxpayer-funded public education. You have to think robustly about how to give effect to pluralism in the face of practical necessities.
> So collaboration is the best-case scenario, because the alternative is a fight. I dislike that this law seems crafted to say "Yes, a fight is the correct approach." That puts children in the middle of an adversarial situation and is therefore unwise.
Whether there is collaboration or a fight often depends on whether the parties clearly agree on their respective rights and roles. If you build your house partly on my land, my response is going to depend in large part on whether you acknowledge the boundary line or attempt to deny it.
A fight is brewing here because there's a disagreement as to rights and roles. In Tinker, the Warren court wrote that educators could exercise their in loco parentis to prevent conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school." It may be that there are incidental moral teachings that bear on that function. So long as we all agree about the limited scope of that authority--only as need to maintain discipline, etc.--we can collaborate on the details.
If educators insist, however, that their role--by virtue of their profession and education--is to teach kids about their view of evolving "secular morality," and displace the moral teachings of parents, then collaboration is not possible and a fight is in order. Because that's a sweeping expansion of educators' role. And it jeopardizes the compromises that a lot of people have made with the larger society. As my mom told me growing up, "just because your American friends can do something doesn't mean that you can."
> "just because your American friends can do something doesn't mean that you can."
That's an excellent example, and I would hope the public education system would teach you that you have exactly the same rights as every American, in contrast to the incorrect information you are receiving from the home. For as Jefferson once said, the purpose of public education is "... To enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom."
It's both. Agnostic or atheistic belief is one of the many faiths understood to be supported and protected by the separation of church and state. If a person can have faith in one god or many gods, they can have faith in none. It isn't French-style, but in a country where, for example, interracial and same-sex marriage is legal (in direct contradiction to the teachings of several religions), there are times where the state must step in to protect its citizens from having their rights stripped by organizations acting as a formal or informal arm of religion, so it can sometimes look like a state-sponsored secular faith.
The question is complicated and has gone the other way too; some religious ceremonies of native American cultures involve the use of psychedelics that are federally banned. Most Christian churches' celebrations of their covenant with God involve the imbibing of alcohol by people under the age of 21. In some cases, federal lawsuits have been involved to determine when the state is overstepping its authority to impose behavioral constraints on people.
> Our laws require equal rights and equal treatment in various contexts: government services, employment, etc. They don't say anything about "value" because in a pluralistic society people have different values.
In my mind, dignity and value are synonymous and the law definitely protects the dignity of those families. I'm unaware of a non-synonymous way to treat those terms, but if there is one I agree with your take on the law.
> "The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions"
The United States has never recognized the UN's full authority over its own laws or the interpretation of same. In the case of that quote, it's sourced from the ICCPR. The ICCPR was adopted by the United States with a declaration and proviso that fundamentally give it no force of authority here (https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/text_blocks/28885). In other words, the ICCPR is, at best, a declaration of morality and has no force of law, so if the US shares no morality or culture, you can't use it in this context to make an argument about how the US should act.
... which highlights the problem with the logic that the US shares no morality. Of course it does. We figure out what our shared morality is via the process of democratic election, debate, and construction of our law. That law reflects the shared morality of its people, which grows from our separate but overlapping faiths.
> whose culture?
The culture decided upon through the interaction of the school board and the election of the board by the people. With an overlap of the federal Department of Education. It's a complicated process, but it's there. There's definitely a culture to a school; without one, one cannot explain any proviso of any student handbook.
> pluralism requires respecting those boundaries
It absolutely does, and if a kid came home crying because their teacher told them they were living in sin with two fathers at home, that would be a major breach of trust on the part of the educator and we already have processes in place for dealing with that. But if the kid comes home crying because one of their classmates has two dads, the teacher said that's okay and the parents had told that kid it isn't? Then we have a clash of religion and the consensus culture of the country, and the school is correct in terms of its duties to teach students how to live in this country. For the law is clear, and the law is a reflection of the consensus morality. In this place, in the public square, in the streets, workplaces, and halls of government, it is okay to have two dads. This does not impinge on what one's heart says is okay.
My faith has an old saying, passed down from its prophet, which sums up this dichotomy nicely: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's."