This story was covered by Richard Dawkins , Bad Astronomy and even Paul which must mean that it actually has some importance. However instead of going on a rant about how stupid this is because religion isn’t science I want to try something else. Is this bill actually legal?
For those of you not in America, and even for some of you there, you may not be familiar with the text of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. So let me quote it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The important part for this particular case is the very first part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. So there we have it, there can be no law that respects the establishment of a religion and no law that stops people practicing it. So you can’t have a law that allows special dispensation for a church that wants to do illegal things, but there can also not be a law that is specifically aimed at stopping someone practicing a religion.
Now, this bill is aimed at providing protection of students who express their religious convictions at school. OK, I have no problem with kids not being persecuted based on religious beliefs. If they want to believe that the world was created in seven days by a nice man with a big beard who lives in the sky, then by all means they can. I choose to believe that we evolved over a quite considerably longer time than that and I hope not to be persecuted by anyone from any religion because of that. If the Oklahoma House of Representatives feel the need to protect this by passing a bill then I’m sure that doesn’t breach the first amendment. However this bill states that schools have to accept answers based on religious viewpoint on any permissible subject. So should a question be asked regarding the currently accepted theory of how the universe was created and a pupil answers with ‘Creationism’ and goes on to explain this then the same credit must be given as would be to a comparible answer regarding ‘the Big Bang’.
Surely this bill contravenes the “Establishment Clause” which is taken to include “the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose”. Is there really an identifiable secular purpose? If the question is regarding a scientifically accepted principle then surely the answer must adhere to this. If someone where to write that the Earth is flat, that it is held up on pillars or that it was created by accident by a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster would this be accepted? If not then there is another contravention of the first amendment in the preferential treatment of one religion over another.
A further part of this Bill, as pointed out by Mr. Dawkins is that “evidently this bill will also allow the straightforward teaching of religion in school”. This definitely goes against the preferential treatment of one religion over another as it would mean that any school could agree to teach one religion as fact.
Would I be making this post were a bill to be proposed suggesting the opposite? Quite possibly. I object on this bill because it allows non-scientific answers to be provided to scientific questions. I object because it allows the Dinosaurs to be placed on Noah’s ark. But I also object because it seems to contravene one of America’s most loved amendments. Were it to say ‘no religion anywhere near a classroom’ that would also be against the constitution and illegal.
Religion has its place in the education system, kids need to be aware of what some people think is true. If they chose to follow a religion after an informed choice, then fine. If they chose that it is wrong, then fine. But the place for religion is not the science classroom, and certainly not in a science exam. This bill is wrong on so many levels, but surely the worst problem is that it goes against the American Constitution, which would make it illegal.
None of this, however, stopped the Oklahoma House of Representatives passing it.
MTFBWY
Filed under: Religion | Tagged: Creationalism, Oklahoma state, Religion, Religion and science
