Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Remember the school in Kentucky where the superintendent had no problem with the football coach taking his players to a church to get baptized? They required permission slips to watch Obama's speech. Seriously.
A quick phone call to the high school got me transferred to the school district's main offices, where a friendly woman answered but did not want to give her name when I identified myself as a reporter."Mam'," I began, "I just have one question that's not even related to the baptism thing and the coach. I just want to know if the district's schools played President Obama's speech on education today."
She responded by putting me on hold. Upon returning, she claimed to have no first-hand knowledge but had been told by someone else in the office that ...
"The students who watched the president's speech today had to get a note signed by their parents that said they could watch it."
In other words, students at the school district where a top official -- the superintendent -- does not see anything wrong with taking football players to be baptized at a Christian revival, were forced to get a parent's signature to "opt-in" (instead of out) for the president's speech.
I'm not surprised, but I am appalled.
Comments
It's almost to the point where I'm numb to this sort of thing. At least it's getting reported, and while the Louisville media outlets aren't making a huge deal out of it, they do seem to be reporting it as a legitimate issue.
I've got a feeling we're going to see a lot more similar stories in the near future, and I'm guardedly optimistic that by raising the visibility of CSS issues in states like Kentucky, people can begin to understand what separation really means.
Posted by: Jay | September 11, 2009 9:59 AM
The obvious follow-up question: were the parents made aware of the opt-in requirement? If so, how far in advance?
Posted by: rpsms | September 11, 2009 9:59 AM
Jay,
Your optimism is laudable but I fear unfounded. Judge Jones' evisceration of the school board in Dover, PA has not stopped a number of school boards and, of course, the state of Texas from trying to elevate ID/creationist crap into science curricula.
It seems that there is always one more rock to turn over where you find yet another xian who feels that his kids and his school district deserve a special dispensation to push jesus in class. Damn shame but vigilance is the only way forward.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 11, 2009 10:08 AM
Did any kids come down to get baptized at the end of the speech?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 11, 2009 10:10 AM
"Did any kids come down to get baptized at the end of the speech?"
No, but the report says that after the speech, Holy Water was used to rinse out the kids eyes and ears.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | September 11, 2009 10:19 AM
My.
Pet.
Goat.
Posted by: n | September 11, 2009 10:33 AM
Jay,
To pile on Mike(Ma)'s comment. I've had students not simply argue that teaching ID is perfectly legal, I've had a few recently argue that NOT teaching ID is unconstitutional. The Religious Reich don't really care about facts or the constitution, their "law" is the Bible and the spreading of "the word." Anything that spreads "the word" is, by definition, legal, anything that stops their program is, by definition, illegal, immoral, or anti-Christian.
It really is an amazing position that they have embraced. Nothing Obama does is right, anything they disagree with is wrong, anything that questions their position is evil. There is no debate, screaming insults and disrupting democracy is democracy, terrorists are heros, promoting personal responsibility is irresponsible. Orwell couldn't have written this book, his publisher would have tried to have him committed.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 11, 2009 10:36 AM
MikeMa -
Emphasis on the word "guardedly".
You're right, of course, particularly in the broad sense, and we have no warrant to get complacent.
That said, if a few people read the story of the football coach and the point clicks with them, that's a small step in the right direction.
Posted by: Jay | September 11, 2009 10:45 AM
The whole country has gone off the rails.
Posted by: Thomas Joseph | September 11, 2009 11:10 AM
This is an excellent example of why such places/people are sometimes referred to as 'backwards.'
Rt
Posted by: Roadtripper | September 11, 2009 11:17 AM
Jay,
I am, in many respects, an optimist myself. I accept that some guarded optimism is reasonable whenever (un) common sense prevails. But I also have no illusions where xians are concerned. There capacity for self (or any other kind of) delusion is amazing.
Case in point: Thomas Joseph @9 may be ascribing the rails we have gone off to be sensible secular relations or he may be referring to our country's xian roots being trampled. Cannot tell from the one line post. Not holding my breath however.
:)
Posted by: MikeMa | September 11, 2009 11:20 AM
In our district the teachers were informed by email at 2:30 on Friday that they could use the speech in class if they got signed permissions slips, submitted lessons plans according to several specified criteria, and offered an alternative assignment without penalty. Amazingly, several colleagues pulled it off. On Wednesday we were told that the speech was just fine after all and that we could use any recordings we had made.
Posted by: barkdog | September 11, 2009 12:10 PM
@ 9:
Well, certainly the populist and even mainstream Right, but I actually perceive much less insanity from the populist Left than say, the late-1960s - 1980s.
I'd really like to see some empirical studies that trend certain psychological defects and the product of those defects in terms of beliefs, arguments, and positions. It currently appears a lot of worse because the actual leaders of the GOP are now emanating out of the insane wing, with virtually no plutocracy left in the party that used to both lead it and check this wing's influence or access to media bully pulpits. But is this insanity reflective of the entire population or a subset of the population? Especially with certain demographics and how those demographics are changing.
E.g., Have older uneducated populists always been this nuts and we merely see it more now because there's relatively more of them? Or, are older uneducated populists more nuts than in the past because they have their own media compounding their gullibility and inherent prejudices coupled to an improved ability to swap yarns more voluminously with the advent of the Internet and Email (or some other measurable dynamic)?
I empathize with Mr. Joseph, but wonder how different the current population is relative to say, the 1960s? My observation is that it is far worsse because rather than Uncle Walter [Cronkite for our younger readers] telling them, "that's the way it is", they're instead getting their news from Christian News Sites like WND coupled to Fox News and viral emails rather than three TV broadcast networks which tended towards one monolithic voice.
However, I also remember when I was a kid growing up in the rural north and how much George Wallace resonated. My dad tells me that the Birchers dominated the Rotary Club in spite of our not having any African Americans living within a 130 mile radius (and that was only South, none to the East, West, or North). However, those examples might have been a mere example of pure racial hatred rather than the delusion we have now (recognizing that racial hatred does have a delusional aspect as well); today's behavior appears to be gone off the rails pure bonkers to add to Mr. Joseph's description.
It seems like this is an incredibly interesting question we'd all like answered. So anyone know of any comprehensive studies on the matter?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 11, 2009 12:21 PM
This is at least better than the rural school were my mom works. The local school board simply did not allow anyone to watch the speech. They did not tell anyone about the descision. It was made the night before and communicated to the principals. No parents or children were consulted. The speech was simply not shown.
Needless to say my mother was furious as she thought she was going to show the speech to her class as a matter of course. She has complained but the administration has been dragging their feet on the matter.
Posted by: topher | September 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Michael Heath- I'm not sure if this is quite what you are looking for but there is the Terror Management Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory
Posted by: AL Jeremy | September 11, 2009 1:08 PM
What's the problem, Ed? Baptism is something all good white christians should do. While the president is an evil darkie mooslim? Do you hate Murka or something?
Posted by: steve s | September 11, 2009 1:09 PM
The fudamentalist conservatives don't even try to hide it anymore, do they?
Posted by: HappyCetacean | September 11, 2009 3:42 PM
Separation of church and state was never intended by the founders. It was supposed be a wall of separation between of president and state.
Posted by: Dr X | September 11, 2009 6:49 PM
Ah yes. I seem to recall that particular phrase coming up in Jefferson's letter to the Emerald City Lollipop Guild.
Posted by: DaveL | September 11, 2009 7:18 PM
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://www.venganza.org/
nuff said
Posted by: blurdo | September 12, 2009 2:14 AM
dogmeatib,
That's one of the best assessments I've come across in a long time. I quoted you on Bay of Fundie ( http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/1863/fundies-gone-wild/comment-page-1#comment-38048 ).
These people cannot be reasoned with. They're collectively insane, and have constructed a parallel reality that reflects that insanity, complete with its own revisionist science and history. I've gotten slammed here before for saying this, but the only remedy I can see is to marginalize them and limit their participation in the political process. If we can't do that, I think we're looking at the end of our global civilization.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | September 12, 2009 8:41 AM
ed,
Why can't a football coach take his players to get baptized?
Posted by: King of Ireland | September 12, 2009 1:42 PM
KoI: They can...but.
Don't use a school bus;
Don't meet on school property;
Do get the parent's permission;
Do make it clear that this has nothing to do with football.
That's a good start. The problem is that coaches can have truly life-changing influences on young athletes, much more than the average teacher. They have no right to abuse that position of trust.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 12, 2009 2:10 PM
I live in the bible belt and what I find funny/frustrating about the whole thing is that for many people the hate they have for Obama seems to be proportional with how religous they are.
One the one hand they are crying that Obama is communist/socialist and are afraid of the evils there.
On the other hand they are preaching the bible and blah blah jesus blah...
I have tried to point out that many of Jesus' teachings and some of the bible is not just compatable with communism and socialism but could actually promote it and all I get is blank stares.
Posted by: Mr P | September 12, 2009 10:35 PM
King of Ireland - legalities aside, do you really see no problem with a High School coach taking his underage players to be baptized without their parents' knowledge or consent?
Posted by: Taz | September 12, 2009 10:56 PM
Mr P-- The most important criterion for believing every word of the bible is literally true is not to have read it.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 13, 2009 7:26 AM