“This isn’t about Charlie Brown or Christmas, it’s about the separation of church and state,” Anne Orsi, the vice president The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, said in her statement voicing opposition to the actions taken by the Terry Elementary School in Little Rock, Ark.
The school took students to a performance of “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown,” reinvigorating a debate between the pious and secular.
The school should not have taken the children to see this play, regardless of giving the option to attend. Not because it violates the Constitution or breaks freedom of religion, but because the state should not have any say in the spiritual or religious education of our children.
I imagine that most readers will rush to defend the school, saying that a Charlie Brown performance is not a big deal. In fact, attorney Matt Sharp of the Alliance Defending Freedom commented on the issue, saying, “An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that it’s OK to celebrate Christmas in schools and in the public square.”
History will indicate that majority view might not be the best or the correct view. While some parents might not mind a little Christianity in their children’s education, it would be wrong to insert a religious view into a public school, a place where diversity and impartiality should exist.
The separation of church and state has been a defining characteristic of the American political system. Thomas Jefferson was among the biggest supporters of a “wall of separation between church and state.” It’s also a concept that is protected by the First Amendment. These are two defining statements that created the American tradition of the separation of church and state.
While the school’s decision to see the play does not seem to violate the text of the First Amendment, it becomes problematic when one examines the purpose of the separation between church and state, as well as the purpose for the passage of the amendment.
John Locke is credited with the original concept of this essential separation. He believed that government lacked the authority to regulate individual conscience. Thus, the issue is not whether the play is offensive to others or pushes religious beliefs, but whether the school should be allowed to make the Christmas-themed play a part of the school day.
The responsibility of spiritual and religious education necessarily lies with the parents. If it were up to the state, religious education would be in the hands of the majority view. It is at this point that we see that freedom of religion cannot be achieved without the separation of church and state.
Everyone has the natural right to discover, learn, and even advocate for their faith. This has to happen in a society that acutely understands the value in the separation between church and state.
Carlos Alfaro is an executive board member for Students For Liberty.
Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu or follow him at @AlfaroAmericano
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
