Does New Law Put One Opinion Over Another?

Never would we want to legislate that schools teach one political opinion over another.

So, let's hope we have not done that with HB220, the much ballyhooed new law requiring schools to teach that the U.S. is a "compound republic."

Now, the new law doesn't say schools are not to teach that we are also a democracy, but, yes, somehow that seems implied.

And, how much "democracy" and how much "republic" belong in our government is a matter of political debate, these days. Look no further than the oppposition to voter initiatives. I see the debate swirling in undercurrents, as I recall a Facebook posting not long ago pointing out that government-by-town hall-vote was common back in pilgrim days.

And, I find my own opinion of whether we should be a democracy or a republic influenced by a passage in The Book of Mormon, which speaks of government by the voice of the people, it not being often that the voice of the people came out against that which was right.

Maybe, though, that word "compound" in the new state law is the key. It says we are a "compound republic." Maybe being a "compound" republic is the allowance that we are also a "democracy."

If so, does that end the question of whether the new law espoused one political belief over another? Perhaps, as off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone who suggests we something besides either a democracy or a republic or a combination of the two.

Oh, one more, thought: Lost in all the ballyhoo about how the new law requires teaching that we are a republic is the fact it also requires schools to display the U.S. motto, "In God we trust."

It sure seems that could attract a lawsuit, someone  suggesting it a violation of church and state.