OKLAHOMA CITY — The first House bill filed for the 2009 legislative session seeks to clarify where the line is drawn on allowing religion in public schools, but opponents say the bill is an ideologically driven measure that will create more problems than solutions.
House Bill 1001, authored by Oklahoma City Republican Reps. Sally Kern and Mike Reynolds, is titled the “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act.”
The bill allows students to express religious viewpoints in the classroom or in assignments without discrimination and prohibits students from being penalized or rewarded for the religious content of their work.
The measure also allows religious groups or clubs to have the same access to school facilities as secular groups and requires school districts to adopt policies on student speakers that does not discriminate against expressions of religious viewpoints.
Reynolds said the goal of the bill is not to create any new policies for districts to follow, but simply to codify into law what already has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding religion in schools.
“There’s nothing new about this bill,” Reynolds said. “It makes it very clear that we agree with the Supreme Court.
“The second thing it does is provide for a model policy for school districts to adopt so they don’t have to hire lawyers to come up with these policies.”
If a district adopts the model policy contained in the bill, Reynolds said the state attorney general’s office would be required to defend the district if it were sued over the policy.
But some lawmakers, including Rep. Ed Cannaday, a former teacher and school administrator in eastern Oklahoma, described the measure as a “cotton candy bill.”
“It’s tasteful and you enjoy it, but it does nothing for you,” said Cannaday, D-Porum.
Cannaday said the bill also could open the door for radical religious groups to demand equal time in Oklahoma schools.
“What’s more dangerous is that this cotton candy has been laced with arsenic,” Cannaday said. “The radical, non-Christian fringe groups who want to undermine our faith will use this to disrupt and to distract from our spiritual base.”
A nearly identical bill last session passed the House and Senate, but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry.
In his veto message, Henry said students already are allowed to express their faith and that the bill could subject school officials to “an explosion of costly and protracted litigation.”
“While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression,” Henry wrote.
Kern, also a former public school teacher, disagreed with Henry’s take on the bill, saying the measure would provide more clarity for schools.
“That is totally bogus,” Kern said of Henry’s veto message. “I doubt he even read the bill.”
Dr. Richard Broughton, an associate professor of zoology at the University of Oklahoma and the president of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education, said he opposed the bill last year and plans to do so again this year. Broughton thinks the bill is an attempt to inject religion into science classrooms, a move the group adamantly opposes.
“We think that only science should be taught in science classrooms,” Broughton said. “It doesn’t deal with specific science or content, but the implications are pretty clear about what kind of things could happen if the bill passes.”
With Republicans now controlling both the Oklahoma House and Senate, Broughton said he fears more bills will be introduced that are driven by ideology than good public policy.
“I really hope we don’t see them, but we’re concerned,” Broughton said. “Those kinds of bills have died in the past, but could re-emerge in the political environment we have now.”
RSS
"It can't account for the fine tuning of the universe so that life is available."
Um, Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection applies strictly to the diversity of life. Not the origins of life, not the origins of matter, and not the origins of the universe, and no not the origins of light either.
"It is, by definition, a theory."
Yup, so are gravitational theory, cell theory, atomic theory, you get the idea...
It remains unproven.
Philosophically speaking, no science models/theories can ever be proven (yes this includes gravitational theory) as 'proof' is a term used in empiricism like in predicate logic and maths.
ID4234,
"Don't forget, Philo777, that Charles Darwin himself said that evolution could never explain the human eye. And he was right."
Ugh, typical creationist quoting out of context again I see. Here's what he said chap.
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable.
Isn't this sponsored by the homopphobe of all homophobes, the ignorant and arrogant sally kerns? I forget the details, but her arrogance toward gay people suggests that she would do well in Saudi Arabia. Except that she would find out what discrimination means first hand against her, for being a woman.
What goes around comes around. It would be poetic justice. keep your fairy tales out of our schools.
Hi ID4234,
I think that you must not have a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. When you say "evolution assumes man is getting smarter and stronger and better" That is a common but complete misrepresentation of the evolution. It is usually based on a misunderstanding of the term "fittest" as in survival of the fittest. This term does not as many presume mean superior or better or smarter or stronger or faster in any absolute way. Rather it means that the individuals of a species that are best fitted to the environment they find themselves in will be most likely to survive, reproduce and pass on their characteristics. If the environment favors smaller, slower, less intelligent individuals than those are the ones more likely to survive and reproduce.
Lol . . . anyone means anyone, right?
"but also anyone who places themselves in his place; a usurper of his authority."
Sounds like some judges in CA...no?
(Ben Steins Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed) did a pretty good job of exposing the agenda of likeminded Darwinists)
I thought so too . . . if Darwinism has become absolute truth for evolutionists, why are they so afraid of allowing open and challenging discussions/views in a scholastic setting?
Daniel Paul,
(The Bible speaks strongly about the spirit of anti-Christ. We often just shrug that off but what it really means is a spirit in people who are against (anti) Christ and Christianity)
Remember my friend that Antichrist is not only anyone who opposes Christ but also anyone who places themselves in his place; a usurper of his authority.
The Bible speaks strongly about the spirit of anti-christ. We often just shrug that off but what it really means is a spirit in people who are against (anti) Christ and Christianity. I don't think this bill will help much because they don't already enforce what is on the books. This law will only be enforced by a judge after parents bring a suit and only if the parents have the money to do so. They don't enforce IDEA for special needs children what makes anyone think they will enforce this?
phileo, excellent and challenging post, but according to many of the pro-evolutionists the origin of life is not a part of the study of evolution and yet they want to take students on a journey that has no starting point and in fact when things get difficult along the journey we simply add a couple of billion years to the end that has no beginning and press on.
I would personally challenge any Darwinist to research the evidence and take it to where it leads you.
philo777 is assuming that science has answered the question of how old the earth is. Any teacher would be foolish to even ask the question, because we simply don't know the answer to that question. We have theories, but because no one was actually there when the earth was formed science can only provide theories.
And I would challenge philo777, or any other Darwinist to answer the question of how life began on earth. If you have any integrity you'll simply say that science doesn't know.
When you arrogantly assume that science has answered all of life's big questions, then I would suggest to you that you have allowed your worldview to usurp scientific exploration by closing the door on alternative theories.
I think Ben Stein's "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" did a pretty good job of exposing the agenda of likeminded Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins, who don't want a debate or exploration in science, but rather simply want to close the door and stamp Darwinism on everyone's forehead.
Memo to Darwinists - The debate has not been settled.
Half the time, you can't even express a Christian point of view on THIS FORUM without being ridiculed and hated (homo and philo!).It's absolutely horrible in the schools.
It will become more and more of a threat to people of Christian faith to be able to utter or write anything that has to do with their faith. There are already laws that are restricting the full right of Christians to express what they believe. Although I would want these law makers to make sure that they are not providing an opening for extreme radicals to infiltrate, allowing the expression of faith that has been a part of our country from day one, Christian/Judeo faith to be expressed is to be applauded. If you can't agree to that, what are you afraid of? It takes a whole lot more faith to believe many of the postulates of scientists than it does to believe in a Creator. To be able to SAY that in a classroom should be the right of any child. If your child can't handle various points of view, then they are not ready for the world!
Don't forget, Philo777, that Charles Darwin himself said that evolution could never explain the human eye. And he was right. There are many other things that evolution can not explain. The theory is missing millions of "missing links." It can't account for the fine tuning of the universe so that life is available. It can not explain light. It has been called by a former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, "A fairy tale for adults." It is, by definition, a theory. It remains unproven. And it is further from being proven now than it was a hundred years ago. But not to worry. In the end, truth will prevail. (Surely we can agree on that.) By the way, contrary to all evidence, evolution assumes man is getting smarter and stronger and better. It's wrong again. How intelligent people can buy such silly, inefficient, ineffective, non-thinking nonsense is beyond me. Just goes to show the utter depravity of modern man. Now devolution, that I can see evidence for.
The bill allows students to express religious viewpoints "in the classroom or in assignments without discrimination and prohibits students from being penalized or rewarded for the religious content of their work."
Now, let's see if I have this straight, in earth science class, a student could answer a test question with 10,000 years when asked the age of the earth without penalty? Sorry, but that's just wrong! This is just more back-door creationism, and would never stand judicial review.
Sorry, ID4234, it's not being anti-Christian to oppose foolishness like this, it's using common sense. If you want to raise yet another generation of ignorant kids, teach them at home. Stay the heck away from my grandchildren!
Dr. Broughton fears the bill is driven by ideology. What does he think has been driving the anti-God, Constitution denying, Bible hating, Christian bashing policies espoused by the ACLU, Americans for Separation of Church and State, and other such groups as well as by a large number of representatives in the US House and Senate? That's right, ideology. It's interesting that if it is an attempt to honor God, it's attacked as ideology, but if it's an attempt to dishonor all that the God of the Bible teaches us, it is just, well, honorable according people such as Dr. Broughton. It is amazing how freedom of speech, association, and religion is constantly under attack with courts sometimes agreeing that those "cornerstone" precepts do not exist.
Of course, because creationism has utterly failed in the court of scientific opinion, now they just have to find some grandstanding politicians to force ideology-based junk onto schoolchildren in the name of scaring up a few more Christian votes. Congratulations, Sally Kerns, you're well on your way to being a national laughingstock.