FOR THREE years of high school journalism classes I looked forward to my senior block, a shrine of immortality in high school. Each graduating class got their own strip of cement on the wall and each graduate could paint them to reflect their own individual personality. My own block contained my nickname decorated with stripes and a picture of Waldo, an unfortunate newspaper moniker.Also featured was a giant orange V to represent the next chapter of my life and the simple phrase "Isaiah 41:10" to represent a constant in my life. Past students' blocks are decorated with everything from the Star of David to the Communist Manifesto, swimming to Phish, Fat Albert to Twinkies. All representing different worldviews, different values and different people. That was the beauty of the blocks -- they were a place for self-expression and freedom.
Unfortunately, some parents in Potomac Mills, Va. might not find the blocks so beautiful; they have objected to similar expressions of faith. They would be wrong if the simple indications of religious faith offended them enough that they found cause to call for their removal. Freedom of speech, religion and expression is not the right to hear, see and be faced only with what one wants to hear; rather, it is the right to always express what one believes and feels, regardless of others' opinions.
This seems to be lost on a couple of Potomac Mills Parents. For the past few years, a parent-run organization, Parents Associated with the School (PAWS), has fundraised by selling bricks to students to form a "Walkway of Fame." The bricks are engraved with text and can be adorned with a select number of icons, among these a cross. The bricks are then placed around the flagpole in front of Potomac Falls High School. All bricks containing any religious references or symbolism were recently removed after the parents of one high school student complained that they found the blocks containing the cross "offensive."
Offensive. Sadly, that's what a simple expression of faith has become in our country. But what even constitutes what is and isn't offensive? What is offensive to one American is perfectly acceptable to another -- Joe Millionaire is a staple in many dorm rooms but shunned in some living rooms. Pres. George W. Bush is a hero to half the country and a pariah to the rest.
If a line of what constitutes offensiveness cannot be drawn, then America is left with two options: First, our country can simply ban and discard anything that any American anywhere finds offensive.We can get rid of all religions, ethnicities, classes and interests. America can just become one giant conformist blob, where no one has convictions or beliefs because they certainly wouldn't want to step on someone else's toes. Or, we as a country could just buck up. People need to start realizing that someone's expression of faith is not a criticism of their own beliefs. A cross on a brick is not saying Christianity is the right way, the only way and everyone else is wrong. It is merely a statement of beliefs for one person.
Some would argue however that America has the great "Freedom of Religion" clause worked into our constitution to protect them from religious icons. As John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, a group fighting for the existence of the religious bricks, said "Those who wrote our First Amendment intended it to provided freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" (www.rutherford.org). How true. Our country was founded on the beliefs that everyone could openly practice any beliefs or religions or lack thereof that they wished. This does not mean citizens have the liberty to only see the symbols for the religions they believe in. Taking away the bricks was denying the students who purchased them the right to both freedom of religion and freedom of speech simply to pacify "offended" parents.
The latest position on schools and religion from the U.S. Department of Education agrees. It states clearly and without question that "The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals" (Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer. February 7, 2003). It couldn't be any clearer. The bricks were bought by students and made by a parent organization. The school was not involved. Yes, they are on school property. However, they do not represent the schools beliefs towards organized religion, nor do they promoteand push one specific religion on students.
Luckily, the idiocy and indignation of the Potomac Mills parents hasn't hit my hometown or high school yet. My block, with its Biblical references and all, remains perfectly in place amongst the wide spectrum of ideas and ideologies of the other blocks. It still reflects colors and life -- unlike the white-washed blank slates of Potomac Mills.
(Maggie Bowden is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at mbowden@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
