Religion and Politics

Controversial lawmaker state Rep. Sally Kern is pushing a bill again this legislative session that would allow creationist ideas, such as the so-called intelligent design theory, into the state’s science classrooms.

House Bill 1551, which I’ve written about before, has passed the Common Education Committee on a 9 to 7 vote and could be heard by the full House soon. It’s a bad bill that is nothing more than religious intrusion into education, and, if passed, will almost certainly lead to an expensive lawsuit. The bill would require state educational authorities to dumb down its public school students, making them less prepared for college or work training.

Kern, pictured right, an Oklahoma City Republican, is nationally known for her comments in recent years disparaging gay people, African Americans and women. She’s the wife of a local Baptist minister, and often blends Christian fundamentalism with her office. Note her “Proclamation for Morality.” This bill is just another part of her religious crusade.

Kern has generated a tremendous amount of bad publicity for Oklahoma, and HB 1551 is just another example of a flagrant religious gesture that will be mocked and ridiculed inside and outside the state.

Let’s take a close look at the bill, which is a piece of disingenuous subterfuge. It’s called the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” which is just the opposite of what it represents. A title more representative of what the bill does would be “The Death of Academic Freedom Act” because it would replace critical inquiry with religious precepts.

The bill notes that the legislature finds “that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy.” It mentions these areas, in particular: biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

The phrase “can cause controversy” is strikingly nebulous. There’s no scientific controversy over these topics, only religious or political controversy, especially with the theory of evolution. In addition, “can cause controversy” could apply to just about anything in a school’s curriculum, including interpretations of history or political systems. How can we possibly define “can cause controversy”? Note the modifying “can.” It “can” but then again it might not.

The bill notes that “some teachers may be unsure” about how to present information on “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Again, note the qualifying “may.” Are teachers “unsure” or not? So they “MAY be unsure” about something that “CAN cause controversy.”

Even though the bill qualifies the reason for its intent, it then seemingly gets more declarative:

Educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies.

What controversies? What are the “effective ways” to help teachers with these “can cause” controversies? It’s just another blanket statement that could be interpreted in a myriad number of ways.

The bill also protects students who may feel compelled, for whatever reason, to reject the scientific method:

Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

But how exactly would a student be penalized in the first place?

The bill’s language and intent is vague because it’s undoubtedly a disingenuous attempt to bring religious ideas, such as intelligent design, into the science classroom. Intelligent design, which has been invalidated as science by a federal court, argues that the natural world is so complicated only a “designer” (i.e., wink, wink, a god) could be responsible for it. Intelligent design is just creationism dressed up in faux scientific jargon. It is NOT a scientific counter to the theory of evolution.

I’ve given my reasons against HB 1551 in a previous post. To summarize, there’s no scientific controversy over the topics the bill addresses, teachers will feel forced to present religious concepts in science classroom as “controversies,” students will waste valuable class time on issues better addressed at a church, and the state’s image will suffer. The bill would also make it more difficult for the state to produce and attract physicians and medical researchers. This is in a state with poor national medical rankings and a low college graduation rate.

The bill is similar to one passed recently in Louisiana. That bill resulted in a science organization cancelling its convention in New Orleans and a petition signed by 75 Nobel Laureates calling for its repeal. The city of New Orleans has voted in favor of repealing the law, and a state senator has filed a bill to repeal it as well.

Do we really need this type of negative publicity and energy in Oklahoma?

Here are the organizations that have already lined up to oppose the bill: Oklahoma Academy of Science, Oklahoma Science Teachers Association, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science education, Oklahoma Mainstream Baptists, OKC and Tulsa Interfaith Alliances and most major national science organizations, which includes the largest scientific organization in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Here is the contact email information for the House Republican leadership:

State Rep. Kris Steele, Speaker of the House, krissteele@okhouse.gov
State Rep. Jeffrey Hickman, Speaker Pro Tem, jwhickman@okhouse.gov
State Rep. Dale dewitt, Majority Floor Leader, daledewitt@okhouse.gov
State Rep. Harold Wright, Deputy Floor Leader, harold.wright@okhouse.gov
State Rep. Welson Watson, Majority Caucus Chair, weldon.watson@okhouse.gov

This is a bad bill that will do irreparable harm to Oklahoma. A similar bill, SB 1742, sponsored by state Sen. Josh Brecheen, is now dormant. I wrote about that bill here.

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange’s decision Monday to issue a preliminary injunction against a state constitutional amendment that prohibits courts from considering Islamic-related law should be lauded here by anyone concerned with protecting individual rights.

On Nov. 2, more than 70 percent of Oklahoma voters approved State Question 755, a constitutional amendment that bars courts from using Sharia law, which is based on the Koran, to rule on cases. There are no known cases here in Oklahoma of courts using Sharia law, and courts are already duty-bound to use federal and state law. The amendment is superfluous and demeaning.

After the election, Muneer Awad, a Muslim who is director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, filed suit in federal court against the amendment, arguing his rights had been violated because his religion has been singled out and essentially condemned. Miles-LaGrange, pictured right, then issued a temporary restraining order barring the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of SQ 755. In her ruling, which is an injunction that can be appealed, the judge agreed with Awad’s argument.

She wrote:

. . . the Court finds that [Awad's] alleged condemnation injury is sufficiently
concrete, particularized and imminent. [Awad] has sufficiently set forth a personal stake in this action by alleging that he lives in Oklahoma, is a Muslim, that the amendment conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities. Further, the Court finds the consequences – the condemnation – that [Awad] believes will result from the amendment are objectively justified.

Essentially, basic religious discrimination perpetuated by the government, even when sanctioned by a voter majority, is a violation of the Bill of Rights, which Miles-LaGrange cited in her ruling. She began her ruling with language from the U.S. Supreme Court that argued:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The Sharia law controversy has drawn major national media attention, which, at the risk of understatement, has not been flattering to the state. The New York Times, for example, published an editorial Sunday that argued Oklahoma voters had been duped by fear mongers. Here’s the last paragraph of the editorial:

The voters of Oklahoma were badly misled by demagogues into passing a profoundly un-American measure. Now it is up to the federal courts to prevent the hatred from spreading further.

Former state Rep. Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs), who authored the “Save Our State Amendment,” has argued the amendment is needed here even if there are no current problems, but the Sharia law ban is simply the latest GOP cultural wedge issue used to create fear and drive voters to the poll.

The Oklahoma State Election Board can appeal the Miles-LaGrange ruling, and it will be interesting to see how far the state will go to support a law that’s so obviously discriminatory. Undoubtedly, those who pushed for the amendment will argue this is a case of judicial activism, but it really isn’t. No state should be allowed to legally sanction religious discrimination. The corporate media here should get behind Miles-LaGrange’s ruling and help cleanup the state’s image on this issue.

So it goes in Oklahoma these days . . .

Can Oklahoma’s anti-gay rights legislators get more petty and mean?

The Rev. Scott Jones, a gay pastor at Oklahoma City’s Cathedral of Hope, gave the opening prayer Wednesday in the House chamber. It was general prayer that spoke of a “Creator” and “Redeemer,” who fills “us with your Holy Spirit. “ There was not a controversial word in it.

(You can read the prayer here.)

But when it came time to make the prayer part of the House journal, a routine procedure, state Rep. John Wright, a Broken Arrow Republican, objected, and it was put to a vote. Showing what can obviously be described as mean-natured pettiness, 20 legislators, including notorious gay-basher state Rep. Sally Kern, an Oklahoma City Republican, voted against making the prayer a part of the official record. Overall, the vote was 64-20 to make the prayer a part of the journal, but the anti-gay message had been sent.

Before giving his prayer, Jones mentioned "my loving partner and fiance, Michael.” Jones’ church has “a ministry primarily to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people,” according to its Web site. Jones’ pre-prayer remarks are not a part of the official record, according to a news report.

Two days after giving the prayer, Jones and supporters held a press conference in which the legislators who voted against including the prayer in the record were asked to apologize.

Meanwhile, The Oklahoman actually covered the controversy as a news story and the blogosphere was filled with posts about the issue. As usual, Oklahoma’s image took another hit from radical politicos in this state. What else is new?

With the economy tanking here, the state legislature really can’t afford to paint the state as a backwards place of intolerance. This has an economic impact. How many groups do the right-wingers and hatemongers want to exclude from the state? Who’s next?

Campus Gun Bill Shot Down

It’s good news that a bill allowing guns on the state’s college campuses has been voted down by a Senate subcommittee, but the issue could still come up this legislative session.

State Sen. Randy Bass, a Lawton Democrat, proposed a measure that would allow law enforcement officials to carry concealed weapons on campuses, and it was unanimously defeated by the subcommittee. The action should make the issue dead for the next two years, according to legislative rules.

But state Rep. Jason Murphey, a Guthrie Republican, has another bill pending in the House, which could put even more guns on campuses.

As I wrote earlier, “Under proposed HB 1083, anyone who holds a concealed handgun permit and completes certification training given by the Council on Law Enforcement and Training (CLEET) would be allowed to carry concealed weapons at public colleges. The new bill appears to exempt faculty from the CLEET training requirement.”

What will happened to Murphey’s bill is anyone’s guess right now, but rest assured the legislator will continue try to get some sort of “Carry on Campus” measure passed this legislative session.

Will the Senate’s action make Murphey’s efforts futile? Does it mean the Senate will not approve any Murphey measure that conflicts with the bill that was defeated by the subcommittee? Let’s hope so.

These “Carry on Campus” measures, proposed across the country and supported by the National Rifle Association, simply create more potential for violence at universities and colleges. Gun advocate extremists are using the recent shooting tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois to push their agenda. Last year, virtually all of the state’s higher education officials opposed a similar measure and in all likelihood they still do.

The Oklahoma Rifle Association gave Murphey its 2008 Legislator of The Year award.

The Ten Commandments

The Oklahoma House General Government Committee has approved a plan by state Rep. Mike Ritze, A Broken Arrow Republican to put a Ten Commandments display at the State Capitol.

The full House will now vote on the measure. Ritze, an ordained Southern Baptist deacon, said his family would pay for the monument, which would be modeled after a Texas Ten Commandments monument.

According to a news report, Ritze said, “The Ten Commandments laid the foundation for modern law and their importance in the development of our legal system should be recognized."

That statement is simply is not true, according to legal experts.

According to The Legal Satyricon:

Lets go to the dishonesty first. Anyone who claims that the Ten Commandments are “where the state gets its laws” either hasn’t read the Ten Commandments or is lying. The commandments that prohibit murder, theft, and perjury may have parallels in American law, but three out of ten doesn’t get you there. Here is a good post debunking the myth that the Ten Commandments have anything at all to do with our laws.

The monument is a bad idea that only creates unnecessary religious conflict. Let’s hope legal groups and excluded religions step forward and challenge this obvious religious intrusion in government.