Berks voters should elect lawmakers who rely on reason, not belief

by Steve Reinbrecht

All of the state representatives who represent Berks County in Harrisburg voted to encourage public schools to post “In God We Trust” in public school buildings – except Mark Rozzi, a Democrat who represents part of Reading and communities just north of the city.

Rozzi was brave to vote against House Bill 1640. The vote in the state House was 179-20. The Senate hasn’t considered it.

But if you don’t want God-Squad politicians making your rules in Harrisburg – tough luck. None in the Berks delegation faced opposition in the primary nor will in the general election in November. 

The voting tally shows that the American Taliban is strong in Berks County – people who think only their beliefs are correct, and want to punish you for believing differently. That sort of intolerance is rampant in the world’s trouble spots – where women are second-class citizens, sexuality and procreation are governed by men, individual expression is prohibited, science has no place, and unbelievers – if not stoned or banished -- are punished by persecution and exclusion. Berks isn’t at the level, of course, but it’s on the spectrum.

Many atheists, Buddhists and Hindus -- fine, moral people who may believe in no or many gods -- live in Berks County. They don’t want their children to go to school and see a sign on the wall that speaks to the majority group but not to them.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s TribLive interviewedElizabeth Cavell, staff attorney with Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis.

“It [the act] equates God-belief and religious piety with patriotism, and that's wrong to do in public schools where students are of all religions and of no religion, and they are young and impressionable,” she said.

“Religion is divisive,” Cavell said. “It's something that makes insiders of the majority-students — the god-believers who understand themselves to be included in the ‘we' of ‘In God We Trust' — and that's not all students by any stretch.”

Why promote the supernatural in our schools? We must trust in reason and action to improve society, not simply prayer, worship and tithing. If you want to inspire good behavior and moral self-reflection, why not post Immanual Kant’s moral imperative: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”

You’d have to explain that to the children who read it on the school wall. But isn’t it better that children come to their sense of right and wrong through reflection and understanding rather than through blind authority?

As a sort of sop, I guess, the act also calls for “providing for the display” of the Bill of Rights in classrooms and other areas in public school buildings.

I have no problem with that.

Religion and politics have always been connected, which is why the guys who wrote the Constitution said government should stay away from religion, although they could have been clearer. The Old Testament and the Koran are all about laws and ruling. The New Testament is suddenly different, catching humanity’s eye. Now the divine message is unconditional love for all other human beings. Treat others as you would have them treat you, so similar to Kant’s rationally derived categorical imperative. A way to negate ego and find the meaningfulness of serving others, as Buddhism had and Islam would. But then Paul took charge, recognizing the power of leading an evangelical organization, comandeering Jesus to start a church that for more than 1500 bloody years inflicted crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions, wars over schisms and reformations, and the repression of science [not the Muslims], generally known as the Dark Ages, on much of the world.

This connects darkly with today's national politics, not with Donald Trump's questionable religiosity, but with his recognition that people who seek power can stimulate the fear and yearning for authority so prevalent in people not properly educated.

As the national motto, “In God We Trust” replaced “E pluribus unum” – “out of many, one.”

According to the infallible Wikipedia:

The change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" was generally considered uncontroversial at the time, given the rising influence of organized religion and pressures of the Cold War era in the 1950s. The 1956 law was one of several legislative actions Congress took to differentiate the United States from atheistic Communism. Earlier, a 1954 act added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.”