…and this is a 
Get ready, Oklahoma — Sally Kern is about to screw you over
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 13, 2008 7:26 AM, by PZ Myers
Remember Sally Kern, the Oklahoma legislator who loves God and hates homosexuals? She had earlier sponsored something called the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act, a ghastly piece of legislation that would require teachers to pass any old crap a student turned in, as long as the student said it was his religious belief — it prioritized belief over evidence. That bill died in a senate committee, fortunately.
But now it has been resurrected! The language from the earlier bill has been inserted into Oklahoma House Bill 2633.
A controversial provision in House Bill 2633 states that "students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
That is simply insane. It's a declaration that religion trumps everything, and gives students an escape hatch from learning — biology class would become an exercise in futility, in which lazy, stupid, or religiously indoctrinated students would simply parrot the book of genesis at their instructors, and expect to be given a good grade.
Sally Kern knows this.
"We are a very conservative state — a very religious state," Kern said.
And working hard to become a very stupid state, too.
Oklahomans, be afraid.
Comments
i religiously believe that 2+2=5. maybe i should have taken algebra in oklahoma.
Posted by: mellowjohn | May 13, 2008 7:32 AM
And I thought living in Texas was bad... This should scare every Oklahoman, but sadly it won't.
Posted by: Donna | May 13, 2008 7:32 AM
students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.I have no problem with that; I will grade it based on the actual content. "No, Johnny, you are not being persecuted; you are simply wrong about the age of the earth. It doesn't matter why you are wrong, but it matters greatly that you are wrong."
"Look on the bright side, Johnny; you are failing a class; you are not being sentenced to an eternity of suffering in a lake of fire."
Posted by: Anon | May 13, 2008 7:42 AM
A temporary discovery of deep religious convictions may be in order to guarantee a good thesis mark then!
Posted by: SamD | May 13, 2008 7:46 AM
Is the teacher then allowed to apply their own religious beliefs to the marking schedule?
Posted by: wazza | May 13, 2008 7:58 AM
Rational people across the south once again sigh that it's not them being embarrassed by over zealous lawmakers.
(yes I live in SC)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 7:58 AM
"I truly believe that 2+2=Pineapple-and-ham-pizza, for that is what the IPU desires. It has been privately revealed to me that this is the Truth."
If this shit goes through, anyone in Oklahoma can write down any kind of bullshit, and eventually get a PhD for it. This is why religion and state must be strictly seperated.
Posted by: Vidar | May 13, 2008 8:00 AM
From the Article:
Great - why is it that the people we elect to our governmental positions seem to have no grasp of common logic? Kern stated that this legislation would prevent censorship of students by simply doing away with standardized curriculum and grading assignments based o the beliefs of the student. But she did so on the basis of two accounts for which she could prvide no clear examples or proof, and yet such speculation necessitates a law that violates our constitutional establishment clause? I'd think that a little more critical thinking training would have done Mrs. Kern well in her formative years, because this just makes no sense. Either she's an idiot, or she's doing it on purpose to allow religion an avenue back into our educational system. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Either way, I would never want any children of mine within two miles of this woman's classroom. Especially when she describes her governmental affiliation - her job position and the responsibilities it entails - as an employee of a religious state. How very, very, middle ages of you!
Posted by: brokenSoldier | May 13, 2008 8:05 AM
The Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education are hoping to flood the Governor's office with messages opposing HB 2633:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/
Now that's a "poll" worth flooding!
Posted by: James F | May 13, 2008 8:05 AM
"And working hard to become a very stupid state, too."
Between Kern & Inhofe, state stupidity is a given.
doov
Posted by: Duvenoy | May 13, 2008 8:19 AM
"Kern spoke of an instance when a child was criticized for religion on a school bus, and she said another student got into trouble for the content of a paper. She did not provide specific examples."
Of course she didn't provide specific examples, especially for the latter. That would have made it clear that she was blurring the line between science and religion. They want two categories: science-science and religion-science. And both should be given separate-but-equal academic status and respect.
It's similar to "medicine" and "alternative medicine" (medicine that has either not been tested, or was tested and failed, but we 'know' it works because of personal experience.)
The bill is trying to make it sound as if a paper which stated "I am a Christian, so I believe in a 6,000 year old earth -- but, according to scientists, the earth is 4.5 billion years old" would be marked wrong. Or that students would be flunked if they were to write "The earth is 4.5 billion years old -- Praise the Lord!"
It's just so hard to be a Christian in our anti-Christian America:
http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor.archive//lioaca.html
Posted by: Sastra | May 13, 2008 8:20 AM
At least trigonometry will be a damned site easier...
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | May 13, 2008 8:23 AM
I believe that 2 + 2 = 5.
YOU MUST PASS ME!
Posted by: Icelander | May 13, 2008 8:42 AM
I would love a bill like this to pass in my state. That way, I could just tell my sons to answer every question on every test for every subject with phrases like "God did it" or "God says the answer is three".
If my kids don't get straight A's and a perfect SAT score I'll sue the state for millions.
Posted by: Theodore | May 13, 2008 8:43 AM
>A controversial provision in House Bill 2633 states that "students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
There is good news for scientists in Europe and Asia right there,might as well take the USA off your list of serious science competition right now !!!
I just think somehow that Sally Kern would not actually enjoy living in the medieval theocracy she is helping to establish,after all,who would be there to repair her toaster if it broke??
Posted by: clinteas | May 13, 2008 8:46 AM
So if the students are allowed to express their beliefs on religion without discrimination, then are they allowed to create artwork along atheist themes? Are they going to permit students who have those views to turn in papers and projects that thoroughly bash religion, or, and this is what I believe will be the case, will this be yet ANOTHER law with the clause "so long as the person admits there is a god"?
This is the type of nonthinking garbage that frees people from having to bother with good manners and forces them into a catch-22 if they are atheists, where they are not included in the protection offered by the law and are opened up to yet more unchecked bigotry by the religious. It's a sad situation and I'm so fricking sick of laws that permit this kind of unthinking attitude. Other laws are put into place, say things like noise ordinances, because people lack the damn common sense to be civil to each other and have to be FORCED to be polite.
Stupid pandering to children who will gleefully jump all over this to avoid having to put any real effort into schoolwork. I sure would've used this to my advantage, knowing the teacher HAD to give me a good grade no matter what nonsense I wrote.
Posted by: Snitzels | May 13, 2008 8:46 AM
Sastra,
Well, in France, even that wouldn't be tolerated. The teacher would strike those lines and put a comment in the margins with something like : "you are not asked or permitted to express your religious views".
The problem in my opinion is that in the USA you have asked for trouble by accepting laws that are far too wishy washy on this issue.
Make it simple : prohibit 100% any exercise, or mention, or recognition of religion or of any form of religious practices in public schools.
This is what we have in France since 1905 (Loi de la Laicité) and it has been working fine. Census after census ahows that this fundamental aspect of our constitution holds firm and is supported by an overwhelming majority of the population, catholics included.
There is no discrimination against religion, a week consists of 168 hours, of which only about 30 are spent in school. That leaves more than 130 hours for parents to endocrinate their children as they wish.
Public schools are for children to learn freely about everything else but religion. It's simple.
Americans, make things simple. Everything else doesn't work, religion will keep creeping back in all the time in your schools. This is the only way to control it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 13, 2008 9:00 AM
"Make it simple : prohibit 100% any exercise, or mention, or recognition of religion or of any form of religious practices in public schools."
This would be in violation of the Constitution.
Any such prohibition would be struck down and rightly so.
Students religious views are already protected by the Constitution making the law unnecessary.
This of course does not remove the students obligation to learn and show they understand what they are required to.
Posted by: spurge | May 13, 2008 9:07 AM
@ Neg No 17:
Same in my home country Germnay mate,however I think you need to account for the US american particularities here a bit more,were not dealing with people of reason or rationality,the rationals there are facing a majority of nutters of a variety of denominations,and a government consisting of subscribers of various forms of nutterism ready to torpedo any outbreaks of secular rational thinking any time.....
I really cant imagine what it must be like over there...
Posted by: clinteas | May 13, 2008 9:09 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2008 9:13 AM
Spurge,
Yes, and you need to ammend that piece of the constitution. For God sake, is this a holy book ? When they wrote this, the founding fathers knew that they were asking for trouble, it's as if they knew it as they were writing it... It's quite obvious that it doesn't work. Your constitution has a big gaping hole in it on this precise issue. A huge conflict of interest. So what ? Is it more holy than the bible ?Posted by: negentropyeater | May 13, 2008 9:14 AM
I'm with Spurge. This bill seems superfluous. Aren't these rights already covered by the Constitution? Hasn't the ACLU already jumped to the defense of students who were discriminated against for their religious expression? Or is the bill really intended to allow wrong answers to get a religious exemption?
Posted by: Kseniya | May 13, 2008 9:17 AM
It is worth noting that the language in the bill does not state the instructor must give the student a good grade for his or her religious beliefs. It merely states that the student is free to express those beliefs. If the students are expected to write an essay about how the study of evolution has influnced the medical field, then they can still get a failing grade if they decide to instead write an essay about faith healing.
The only impact this law would have is that if the student put some sort of "I don't believe in evolution" disclaimer in his essay, that disclaimer would not be factored into the evaluation of the essay as a whole. As long as the essay adequately covered the topic of evolution and medicine, the student should be given a good grade regardless of what he or she believes.
Or what is more likely, what I've seen as part of a religious community, is that the law is meant to address the most common complaint parents have about religion being discriminated against in schools. That is, something along the lines of an elementary school class is given an assignment to draw their families engaged in activities (or something similar) and a student includes a religious theme - draws the family going to church with Jesus in the background or something . . . and the teacher refuses to display the picture with the rest of the class' drawings or otherwise rejects it.
What I find most sad about the law is that someone feels the need to explicitly legislate it. Students already cannot be discriminated against for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). It's one of those First Amendment things. Yet there are educators and parents who misunderstand the seperation of church and state, who interpret it as an exclusion of religion from all public forums, and it does happen that students are discriminated against for their religious expressions. Not often, and yes, there are also students discriminated against for their lack of religious belief, which discrimination is also wrong, but it happens. Such cases are generally resolved without going to court and when they do, the courts tend to rule as they should that freedom of expression is protected.
Oklahoma House Bill 2633 is entirely unnecessary. It's unfortunate that people think it is.
The whole "I believe X, it's what I'm going to write about and you have to give me a good grade" sounds about right for the shenanigans high school punks would try to pull (coming from someone who taught high school for a short time). That doesn't mean they're right. How schoolers are wrong a lot more often than they think they are.
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 9:21 AM
Our future engineers will be building cars with pi = 3.0
Posted by: Dennis N | May 13, 2008 9:22 AM
You do realize that this is what the Religious wackaloons think we are doing don't you? They think that their kids are not allowed to pray at all in school, period. This is what you always hear, and it is a total pile of steaming Longhorn bullshit. Kids can pray all they want to in school as long as they do it on their free time. If a child wants to take his lunch break to gather with other religious folks to pray. Then fine. More swing set for me. Just as long the school isn't setting aside a time for it, promoting it etc. I also think it's fine to have a comparative religion class as long as that is where it stays and equal time is given throughout the course to the major religions. And that it truly is comparative. I know that opens the door for the fuckwits to proselytize, but as long as there is some form of oversight I say go for it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 9:22 AM
The way I read this:
"students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
Students already have this right. You can write in on your biology exam or geology exam that you think the earth is 6000 years old, or whatever, and you will not be discriminated against because of the religious content of your answer, you will be discriminated against because of the incorrect content of your answer, and the discrimination will take the form of being handed a lower grade than would have resulted from a correct answer.
(I feel I have to say that I am using the word "discriminate" to mean simply "recognize the difference", as I suspect the word carries some baggage.)
Posted by: SteveC | May 13, 2008 9:25 AM
Rev: exactly.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 13, 2008 9:30 AM
Damn dennis N, you beat em to it.
I'm not worried about 2+2=5, but I AM worried about Pi=3. There are tons of websites that try to justify this (its from Kings), presuming we have it wrong and God has it right.
Rev bigdumbchmp, you are right. I also hear often that the atheists want to take away their religion, when in fact, we simply don't want it shoved down our throats.
Spurge is mostly right. The key issue is NOT that religion is in the schools, its that it is in science class. We teach tons of religious stuff in school, and we should. religion is a very strong part of our history and philosophy. We have a lot to learn from the rights and wrongs of religion.
We just should be teaching biblical stories as fact.
Posted by: techskeptic | May 13, 2008 9:32 AM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2008 9:32 AM
Kseniya,
if it's superflous, why do people oppose it ?
No, it's because it's one of the numerous possible interpretations of the exercise clause of the first amendment, just the Sally Kern version of it...
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 13, 2008 9:32 AM
or, to do the whole thing in a French-Canadian accent for consistency:
Nobo-day's called ze cops yet, eh?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2008 9:34 AM
I'm sure this will come back to bite her in the ass when more than Xtians start abusing this law.
Posted by: fubarmonkey | May 13, 2008 9:37 AM
I hope not, I'm still working on the full loop.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 9:38 AM
They have the freedom to write whatever they want, as long as I have the freedom to fail them for it if it is wrong. As most others have noted, they have that right already.
Posted by: Aegis | May 13, 2008 9:41 AM
Kern is basking in her new-found fame, playing her notoriety to the hilt (as well as lamenting her martyrdom). The on-line Advocate has a column about it: [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | May 13, 2008 9:42 AM
"if it's superflous, why do people oppose it ?"
Because if it is superfluous the law must be intended to do something beyond the obvious.
This is their whole shtick. Make laws that seem fair but in reality are intended to give their Christian point of view exclusive protection.
Posted by: spurge | May 13, 2008 9:44 AM
I say let 'em pass it. Let every Fred Phelps wannabe spew religious hatred by the gallon. Every smart-ass Pastafarian and Subgenius are also free to insert lengthy sermons into their math homework. Let angry Muslims preach death to the infidel during their oral report on the Middle East. I say bring it on. Make the schools powerless to do anything about it. We'll see how they like it after a while.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | May 13, 2008 9:45 AM
Why don't all you people with time to post comments about this issue take a few minutes to write Oklahoma's governor like I did? There's a link over on ERV's blog:
Governor Henry,
Please allow a concerned citizen to voice his opposition to a newly-introduced bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. House Bill 2633, sponsored (as I understand it) by Representative Sally Kern, says, among other things, "students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
Governor, please let me express my dismay that this subject even needs to be addressed. This is the same Sally Kern who said "(e)volution undermines Christian principles. Period." This person, in my opinion, is mentally unbalanced.
Permit a non-believer to express a simple FACT: if a particular notion cannot be tested via the scientific method, it is not science and does not belong in a science classroom.
Christian fanatics like Rep. Kern are destroying this country. They seek to undermine REAL freedom in the guise of imposing "morality" on the rest of us who wish to be left in peace. Furthermore, they seek to put American children behind the curve where it comes to science education compared to the rest of the world. And we're at a severe disadvantage in that area as it is.
Please do what you can to oppose this offensive proposition.
Cordially,
Paul Lundgren
Ames, IA
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | May 13, 2008 9:47 AM
Man, I wish we had that out when I took physics! Why bother learning anything about gravity when I can claim Intelligent Pushing trumps any laws or formulae. Geometry would have been a breeze. Proof? who needs a stinking proof? All I have to do is quote scripture: "in Him all things are possible." Count me wrong and I'll have your frickin' teacher's certification for lunch!
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 13, 2008 9:51 AM
This is insane. I go to a Catholic school and I still have to regurgitate the cirriculum from time to time. As far as I know, that's what being a student is.
I mean, if anyone should be exempt from this, it should be me. After all, at least my ideas make sense and are supported by smart people, like PZ.
Posted by: JStein | May 13, 2008 9:52 AM
Intellient Falling PWNS Intelligent pushing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 9:53 AM
Intelligent Falling? Pffft. That's so 20th century.
The hot theory now is Intelligent Sucking.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 13, 2008 10:01 AM
And here is the obligatory Calvin and Hobbes reference.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 10:02 AM
Pardon me for apostasy, but I believe that 2 + 2 = 7½.
Infidels.
Posted by: Bob O'H | May 13, 2008 10:03 AM
not going to go there.. must resist...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:07 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 13, 2008 10:07 AM
Rev. BDC @ #33,
Ah, the eternal dream. From Mythbusters:
"It is possible to do a chain-straight 360° loop on a swingset.
busted
Under one's own power it is impossible to do a chain-straight 360° loop on a school yard swingset. With help of other pushers, it is possible, although highly difficult, to do a full circle without the chain being straight. A person would need a rocket strapped to himself to do it. A dummy was set up in such a manner; the rocket was able to propel it in a chain-straight 360° loop, but the setup would be too dangerous with a real person."
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode34
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 10:09 AM
@#41
This link, from your link! The Wrathful Dispersion linguistic theory.
Beautiful.
Wrathful Dispersion
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 13, 2008 10:10 AM
Like evidence and experimentation ever stopped anyone.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:14 AM
Guys, I'm really sorry about this. Just know that there are atheists in oklahoma fighting this. Be mad at the legistlature, not the state.
Posted by: James H. | May 13, 2008 10:16 AM
Spurge #36
I don't understand this. If the exercise clause of the first amendment already protects them, in what sense is this additional piece of legislation intended at giving their Christian point of view exclusive protection ?
Seems to me that religion is already far too much protected in American public schools (my points earlier, even American secularists here seem to disagree but ok, I'm French so I'll just keep my mouth shut on that one), so this text seems to add absolutely nothing.
I's just Sally Kern trying to make herself more interesting than she is. This is just much ado about nothing, or am I completely missing something ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | May 13, 2008 10:17 AM
Rev. BDC @ #49,
Call it the Theology of the Loop and you're halfway to the OK State Science Fair!
Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 10:23 AM
Fuck man...wtf.
Posted by: andrew | May 13, 2008 10:36 AM
Has there ever been a nation so bent upon a course to self-destruction as the US seems to be?
Maybe the Birchers were right about floridation in our water being a commie plot to destroy the US. It just took 40 years longer than they thought.
Posted by: Larry | May 13, 2008 10:46 AM
I'm proud to live in the relatively progressive state of Tennessee. Perhaps we learned our lesson with Scopes?
Posted by: Greg Esres | May 13, 2008 10:46 AM
I'm proud to live in the relatively progressive state of Tennessee. Perhaps we learned our lesson with Scopes?
Posted by: Greg Esre
Then please do explain Bill Frist.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 13, 2008 10:54 AM
. . . don't understand this. If the exercise clause of the first amendment already protects them, in what sense is this additional piece of legislation intended at giving their Christian point of view exclusive protection ?
Because people, a lot of people, misunderstand the First Amendment. They misunderstand what the seperation of church and state means based on the first amendment. There are anti-religious crusaders who mistakenly try to use the seperation of church and state to exclude religion from public. There are religious crusaders who mistakenly believe the seperation means they are excluded. There are people caught in the middle who really couldn't care less, but mistakenly believe that if they don't exclude religion from their classrooms they might lose their jobs.
Really, the law is uneccessary . . . but a lot of people mistakenly believe we need it. I would sincerely hope that a legislator would not be among those people, but legislators are elected from the general populace and are subject to all our flaws. That and, unfortunately, religion sells very well in US politics. It may well be that any given legislator realizes the law is uneccessary, but will support it to pander to a cerain subset of his or her constituancy.
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 10:54 AM
"students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions."
This says nothing about answering a question correctly. Answering "god" to answer the question "without [_____] photosynthesis cannot occur" would be just as worthy of an F as "2+2=5" or stating the value of Pi as 3.
But, those aren't really the kind of questions contemplated, now are they?
Posted by: Salt | May 13, 2008 11:04 AM
We are afraid PZ and we are doing everything we can to get the bill vetoed. BTW it's the squeeky wheel that gets the grease and Kearn squeeks alot. What she needs is a good blowjob to change her perspective but I'm not volunteering.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | May 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Correct.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 11:14 AM
I can see it now...
Teacher: Welcome to class children, this will not take long. Any question you come across the answer is 'God did it'. This applies to any question you may have. That's all, see you next year.
School just got a lot easier.
CL
http://www.coulerlewkowitz.com
Posted by: CL | May 13, 2008 11:17 AM
My understanding is that all this Kern legislation mimics similar legislation that has been in effect in Texas for a long time. Yet none of you are bombarding the Texas legislature with emails. For an "intelligent" group of people, you are all reacting much like your opponents. "We all know ...." this legislation will lead to teachers being forced to accept 3.0 as PI whenever the student declares a religious revelation has revealed him/her/it the truth. Actually, there is no such statement made.
says nothing about grading at all and is redundant except for those anal-retentive teachers and administrators who fear allowing a child to express its religious beliefs in any of the above forms. As mentioned by commenter Jack, this would include a picture of the child's family at church or an essay about bible camp returned to an assignment on "What I did last summer." There is nothing in this language that says the child has the right to determine the truth of test answers anymore than he/she/it has ever had.A tempest in a teapot I think this is, formed more by what this woman stands for than what the legislation actually says.
Posted by: Oldfart | May 13, 2008 11:20 AM
The problem is, of course, that these religious nuts are told constantly by their pastors, christian media, etc., that they *are* being unfairly persecuted... And that the Bible *is* completely and utterly irrefutably "true".
Point out that most Christian scientists worldwide have no problem with evolution (and most Christians in Europe, and the Catholic Church for that matter...) and you'll be told that these people aren't *real* Christians.
It's a ghastly state of affairs.
Hey ho.
We need to stop framing this debate as Christians vs. Atheists, and start framing it as rational people vs. religious nuts.
Yours, atheistically, PTET.
Posted by: PTET | May 13, 2008 11:27 AM
"Guys, I'm really sorry about this. Just know that there are atheists in oklahoma fighting this. Be mad at the legistlature, not the state."
I second that, I just sent a second letter to Gov. Henry asking him to veto the bill.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | May 13, 2008 11:40 AM
All you with your 2+2+5 stuff. Hah! Testing itself, is against my religious beliefs. I don't even have to fill in the answers! In fact, having to go to school is against my beliefs. Oh, and paying taxes, and respecting other's rights as humans, and...
Posted by: Dahan | May 13, 2008 11:42 AM
I don't think that specific reframing either helps or addresses the issue.
It does not help.
The division is too stringent. I believe in God and I recognize that is not rational. I don't think spiritual experience needs to be rational. I "believe in" evolution and the scientific method. I don't know how to reconcile the apparent contradictions. But I both know what experiences I've had and I think critically about what I'm taught. By your classification, am I a religious nut or a rational person?
It does not address this issue.
One part of the issue being freedom of expression. Yes, even our school children have that right. Another part being the mistaken sense of repression felt by religious persons in the USA and how politicians take advantage of it. It is shameful that Ms. Kerns has proposed this legislation. Not because "Oh no! Religious nut jobs are taking over the state!" But because it illustrates how ignorant people are about the relation between church and state. Ms. Kern is right about one thing. Oklahoma is a very religious state. The whole country is. Religious people have already taken over the state. If anything is "nuts", it's that this group somehow feels repressed when they're the ones in charge.
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 11:53 AM
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Everyone, be sure to donate to Kern's opponent, Ron Martlett, to get this nut out of the state house. I no longer live in Oklahoma City, but I have family that do, and crap like this makes the whole state look stupid.
Posted by: Beth | May 13, 2008 12:08 PM
As an atheist, I can see how kids could have some fun with this idea....but it doesn't justify its seeing the light of day.
Kern(el) should get together with Paul 'Horst' Wesselhoft - he's completely paranoid too and way past his sell-by date. He keeps trying to ban 'pit bulls' even though nobody supports his wacky Bills (they invariably die in the House)and OK State law prohibits that kind of crazy stuff.
Oklahoma is a 'very religious state', eh? Good thing it's also a sparsely populated one.
Posted by: Caveat | May 13, 2008 12:36 PM
@oldfart
Yes, the RVAA legislation is already the law of the land in Texas; it passed in the 2007 session.
It blows.
Posted by: Marvin | May 13, 2008 12:57 PM
@ Oldfart
"says nothing about grading at all and is redundant except for those anal-retentive teachers and administrators who fear allowing a child to express its religious beliefs in any of the above forms."
This is exactly where it is redundant.
Students are already protected by the Constitution in those cases.
Posted by: spurge | May 13, 2008 1:03 PM
This country is going to hell. Or at least Oklahoma! is. I thought I might put the exclamation point after Oklahoma because I thought it might be clever.
Posted by: LP | May 13, 2008 1:20 PM
Expression of religious views in science classes or math class would be simply superfluous as long as the student eventually got down to the content expected to be addressed. For most tests or worksheets there would be little room or time to include elaborate religious opinions. However, a student assigned a three-page paper (assuming their attention spans permit them to do something like this in OK) who spends two and a half pages expounding biblical crap may be difficult to protect against. The assignment would have to be carefully worded.
Posted by: Hal | May 13, 2008 1:28 PM
Too many comments to read them all, so apologies if this was already mentioned:
Brayton's blog covered a case recently in which a Christian student's art assignment was rejected because it included a cross. Seemed to be a case of a clueless teacher not understanding just where the boundary lazy. Someone (don't recall if it was the ACLU or the ADF) set them straight that the student's submission was perfectly permissible. End of story.
So Kern's bill seems to protect things that are already protected (artistic expression, where there is no objective "truth"), but also allows for applicability creep into the scientific area.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 13, 2008 1:32 PM
As a past resident of Oklahoma I both called and wrote to the Governor's office. Here is what I said (actually I fibbed a bit, I am so sick of religious zealotry that I don't really think there is any place for it):
Honorable Governor Henry:
I spent the first 47 of my 58 years in Oklahoma. Although I no longer reside there, I attribute my successful scientific career to a number of excellent teachers I had in Oklahoma, from grammar school through my degrees at OU. I am a Senior Project Scientist, currently working for a private company. Previously I worked in an EPA research laboratory and have also served as an External Advisor to the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
None of this would have been possible without the unbiased, factual, evidence and reason-based education that I received in Oklahoma. The amendment proposed by Rep. Kerns to HB 2633 threatens to derail such science education in the state that I love, the state of my birth, the state that gave me the tools to succeed in life.
There is a place for religion and there is a place for science, but the place for religion is not in the classroom. It is the height of folly to provide students with a tool that will allow them to challenge the understanding and teaching of science with religious viewpoints for which there is no evidence. In fact, in the absence of such evidence, it is quite literally possible for virtually any sort of nonsense to be promulgated by the students in the classroom in the name of religion.
I strongly urge you to support the continued education of the children of our great state and foster continued scientific and economic growth in Oklahoma by vetoing this anti-science and anti-reason bill.
Posted by: ChemBob | May 13, 2008 1:34 PM
I'm sorry . . . I mean, I do agree that this is a stupid bill. It's just . . . I dunno'. I can't excuse myself. It just struck me as funny. The bill is not anti-science or anti-reason. Kern may be, but the bill is not. It's just unnecessary.
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 1:57 PM
The problem is that if there is any kind of a nutter loophole, they will exploit it. Plus, teachers shouldn't have to wade through a bunch of extra religious verbosity while grading papers or tests. It is irrelevant and the teachers should be allowed to criticize the insertion of such nonsense without fear of retribution.
Posted by: ChemBob | May 13, 2008 2:04 PM
As faculty at the University of Oklahoma, I would like to comment. First, this amendment has almost no chance of becoming law. Governor Henry is an intelligent individual and pro-education; he will certainly veto it. I and numerous others have written to him to voice opposition to this bill. Second, I would like to point out the link to the Zoology Department just to give a little different view of our state and science:
http://www.ou.edu/cas/zoology/evolution.htm
At least we don't need the following statement:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
From the southern plains...
Posted by: Michael McShan | May 13, 2008 2:16 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 13, 2008 2:16 PM
There are people who would exploit it, sure. Unfortunately, that's human nature. But there is nothing in this bill that doesn't already exist . . . that they could not already exploit.
Keep in mind, I'm not advocating support for this bill. I don't think there's any harm in it, other than that its passage might be seen as a victory by unsavory political types, but as I said, I think it's a stupid, unnecessary bill. Mostly, I'm just pushing the debate where I think I see some fallacies.
Which leads me to ask what you are suggesting? Do you mean to say that teachers should be allowed to discriminate against students based on religious expression? That because there do exist unscrupulous "religious" persons, the thought police should clamp down on students' expressions of religion?
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 2:37 PM
Yes. We have written off Texas as a national sacrifice area. Rumor has it the Texas bill is already causing problems. Specifically that the creo wingnuts are pushing creationism into our kid's science classes.
Although from what I've heard, they didn't need the bill to do that anyway.
Posted by: raven | May 13, 2008 2:41 PM
You know what, I'm going to shut up now. I'm sorry. I'm new here. I found a link to the site and it's fascinating. The scientific content is interesting, I agree with a lot of the politics. I even agree with much of the anti-religious zeal, despite being a religious person myself, because I think a lot of the religious community . . . um, . . . invites criticism.
Like I say, I'm new here. Poking around the site, I came across the Dungeon and want to just bow out before I get banned for "concern trolling". I mean, that's not my intent. It's just the level of anti-religious zealotry over something of relative unimportance got to me.
Sorry. I'll just read along.
Posted by: Jack | May 13, 2008 2:57 PM
Jack, if I said anything that gave the impression that teachers should be allowed to religiously discriminate, it was not my intent. I don't think their homework or test papers are appropriate places for them to exhibit their religious beliefs, however. Not in a science course anyway, perhaps in a philosophy class.