« Pics from the Seattle Museum of Flight | Main | Sigh... »
Kerns, that is, Sally Kerns, homophobe, anti-intellectual, Oklamhoma State Rep.
Not content with asserting that homosexuality is worse than terrorism, she's found a new way to make sure that Oklahoma is not left behind by Florida and Texas in the race for "America's Next Top Dumbass": New language in Oklahoma House Bill 2633, aka "The Return of the Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act".
Once again, justifying it with anecdotes:
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.I mean, I understand that fundies are not down with actual data, hell their entire worldview is based on nigh-anonymous anecdotes and selectively literal interpretations of allegory. But here's the money shot:
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."What's that really mean? Well, just like meatcake, we don't know. However, if a kid answers every test on a science exam with "'cause Jesus says so", that language would keep them free from discrimination based on the religious content of that submission.
But the entire thing is religious content. So how does a teacher properly fail the little idiot without "discriminating against the religious content" of the submission? Seems rather difficult.
Of course, if it passes, and it hasn't yet, we all know the test case that will make Ol' Sal' push to repeal the law: Some little smartass is going to say "Our Lord and Saviour Satan did it in between blowjobs". DOH! Hey, Satan worship's a religion, right?
Somehow, I don't think Ol' Sal' will be down wit dat, yaknowwhuti'msayin?
Can we institute a "No Fucking Idiots" requirement for being elected? Please?
Technorati Tags:
Religion makes you stupid
Posted by John C. Welch at 12:18 | Permalink
Comments
"cause Jesus says so" is still the wrong answer on a math test. However, I don't have much problem with students being allowed to use their beliefs in artwork or philosophy essays, when in line with the subject matter of the assignment.
As for anecdotes triggering legislation, anecdotes have a long history of being what triggers equality or anti-discrimination legislation. As a society, we've decided one case of discrimination is unacceptable, so of what possible value is data? If tools can be created based on anecdotes for non-Christians, they can be for Christians, too. What difference does it make what percentage of people this impacts, what percentage of time it happens to them, and what the usual consequences are when we've decided that discrimination is bad, period?
Posted by:
sdf 
|
May 13, 2008 1:26 PM
"cause Jesus says so" is still the wrong answer on a math test"The Lord created the universe, and Jesus is Lord, so therefore "Because Jesus Said So" is my personal religious view, and if you mark me down, I'll sue under the new law."
As well, since Rep. Kerns can't be arsed to actually provide data for her anecdotes, pardon me if I have trouble taking her seriously.
As for anecdotes triggering legislation, anecdotes have a long history of being what triggers equality or anti-discrimination legislation.You mean like how all the women's sufferage laws were based on anectdotal evidence? The Civil Rights act? Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas? Anti-Slavery laws were based on anecdotes? Matthew Shepard? The jehovah's Witnesses cases?
I'm having a hard time recalling anti-discrimination legislation based on unfounded anecdotes with no data. Got Link?
As a society, we've decided one case of discrimination is unacceptable, so of what possible value is data?The funny think about legal cases. They have this "proof" thing.
f tools can be created based on anecdotes for non-Christians, they can be for Christians, too. What difference does it make what percentage of people this impacts, what percentage of time it happens to them, and what the usual consequences are when we've decided that discrimination is bad, period?Because I like my lawmakers to have, you know, actual PROOF of discrimination before they claim we need a law to prevent it?
Posted by:
John Welch |
May 13, 2008 1:36 PM
I think you're over-reacting a little bit: discriminating against someone's religious views and being marked up/down for correctness are two separate things. Stating that 'cause Jesus says so' does not impart the full set of information asked for in a question is *not* discrimination against that belief. Furthermore, people's right to believe *should* be protected.
But having said that, yeah, it should be a lot clearer. Some idiot will probably try to argue that apples are oranges.
Posted by:
Tom Hillman |
May 13, 2008 2:05 PM
Again Tom, where's the proof this is happening? As well, this is not going to "prevent lawsuits" by any means. The first time a bio teacher gives a kid a bad grade for saying "Evolution is wrong, Goddidit" bang, lawsuit.
Christianity's "oppression" is the biggest scam ever perpetrated. Christians aren't oppressed, hell, they're only a few steps from being able to change the Constitution so that this country becomes a theocracy, and Christianity is required.
So unless Rep. Kerns can come up with, you know, PROOF of this discrimination against the poor, poor christians, sorry, it's bullshit.
Posted by:
John Welch |
May 13, 2008 3:06 PM
I think you're as guilty about making this about Christians as she is, John: the wording you've quoted above is about religious intolerance, not discrimination about Christians.
I didn't offer you any proof, because I don't feel I have to. I don't live in your country, and I don't feel the burden is on me to decide what your legislature should be! What I wanted to point out is that discrimination isn't the same thing as correctness (more in a tick) and that people's right to believe in what they wish to (even the bloody stupid) should be protected. My opinion, however, is that I'd like to think that the US constitution (a legal entity I think we need an equivalent of here in the UK) should cover it, and less legalese is better than more.
I am not a Christian. I have been, and when I was, I saw no conflict between my faith (of the time) and evolution. I think that the theory should be taught in schools, in all countries. I think that teaching that any theory, no matter how strong, should never be taught as a complete answer, because that undermines the continual empirical research and improvement of the scientific method. I believe that schools exist to inform and educate, not to indoctrinate. So I would support someone's right to state that they did not believe in evolution, that they believed in the flying spaghetti monster or god or aliens, whatever. That's their right to believe, stupid as it may be. However, I would also say that if a question asked details of how a theory worked, points should be awarded and correctness decided by their answer. So if someone was asked how the theory of evolution worked and they said 'god did it' they get marked correct because they have not demonstrated the required information, not because of their belief. If they gave the correct answer in hypothetical terms and then stated that they did not believe in the theory, then they should be awarded the marks.
I was once a christian, and I am now an atheist. But I now recognise that I have always been an agnostic, something I prefer to regard as an orthogonal scale. Agnosticism, for me, is being prepared to admit that you are wrong: the opposite of dogmatism. It doesn't come easy, especially as I like to argue (not that I feel that's a bad thing either, and I suspect you're the same). End result: whatever you believe, it's more important to have an open mind. And although we may disagree with idiots, we should defend their rights to idiocy to the death.
Posted by:
Tom Hillman |
May 14, 2008 12:54 PM
I think you're as guilty about making this about Christians as she is, John: the wording you've quoted above is about religious intolerance, not discrimination about Christians.Christianity is the majority religion with more political power as a group than every other religion in this country combined. When a vocal member of that religion blatantly states that she is using her political position to move forward that religion's agenda, and also admits that she will do so at the expense of other groups, homosexuals most prominently, then of course it's about Christianity.
Were she a muslim, then this would be about Islam.
I didn't offer you any proof, because I don't feel I have to. I don't live in your country, and I don't feel the burden is on me to decide what your legislature should be! What I wanted to point out is that discrimination isn't the same thing as correctness (more in a tick) and that people's right to believe in what they wish to (even the bloody stupid) should be protected. My opinion, however, is that I'd like to think that the US constitution (a legal entity I think we need an equivalent of here in the UK) should cover it, and less legalese is better than more.So you don't have any proof of your statements, you don't really know what it's like to live in certain parts of this country when you're not a frothing fundie, and yet, you're going to tell me *I'M* wrong?
And although we may disagree with idiots, we should defend their rights to idiocy to the death.When that idiot is a state representative, making statements that say the mere existence of homosexuals is a greater danger than the people behind 9/11 or the Oklahoma City Bombing, and using her very real political power to push forth a fundamental Christian agenda at the expense of all other groups? No. No, I shall NOT defend her "rights to her idiocy" to the end of the block, much less to the death.
She has a right to be an idiot. However, when she assumes political leadership, she loses the right to that idiocy. If she cannot manage that, then she needs to step down.
Posted by:
John Welch |
May 14, 2008 1:48 PM
I have a lot of problems with grandstanding, but I don't have any problem with anti-discrimination laws that can be used to defend Christians.
I have a different perspective on this, living in a country where the pendulum has swung quite a bit the other way. There is a law in place here that could theoretically send a man to jail for saying "homosexuality is a sin" to a congregation. Whether or not you believe that is irrelevant; it shouldn't be illegal to say. (For the record, I'm pretty sure it hasn't been used for that yet. And I'm also hopeful that if it ever came up, the law would be thrown out. But I think expressing your religious views verbally ought to be fine if it's not an attempt to incite hatred or violence.)
Posted by:
sdf |
May 14, 2008 2:05 PM
It is not illegal NOW to express your religious views, nor has it ever has been, particularly if you're a christian. However, what the fundamentalist wing, (the ones with all the power) wants is not the freedom to "talk about" their religion, but the freedom to run this country as a *Christian* country.
It is their inability (so far) to actively proselytize in public schools, in government, etc. that is pissing them off and making them scream "discrimination!" What they want is the ability to say "You must be a Christian to hold office, get married, have a family, etc." The fundies screamed bloody murder when a legally elected Muslim swore on the Koran. Literally screamed and whined that if you do not take your oath of office ON A BIBLE, that you should not be allowed to hold elected office.
THAT is what they want. They've had the "right to talk about their religion" since 1787.
Posted by:
John Welch |
May 14, 2008 2:18 PM
John, in Canada there is such a law on the books. It likely colors my viewpoint here. I accept that it's different there. I just wanted to explain why my perspective is different, but I probably did a poor job of that. :)
Posted by:
sdf |
May 14, 2008 3:24 PM
[quote]So you don't have any proof of your statements{/quote}
Now when the hell did I say that? What 'statements' did I make that require proof, anyway? John, I like your writing, but sometimes you're guilty of engaging controversy to win an argument rather than actually engaging in the argument. My point isn't that I was unqualified to make an opinion on certain aspects of your rant, it was that I wasn't trying to do so in the first place! And I'm not trying to say you're 'wrong' either: I don't think it's that clear cut.
[quote]She has a right to be an idiot. However, when she assumes political leadership, she loses the right to that idiocy.{/quote]
THIS is what I disagree with. We both live in countries with a democratic system, NOT a meritocracy. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing. Fact remains, if the people who voted her in are 'idiots' who want her to represent her 'idiocy' than those views and opinions, no matter how wayward you or I feel they are, qualify her for political leadership. Welcome to the drawbacks of democracy.
[quote]It is not illegal NOW to express your religious views[/quote]
I think this is more to the point: the bill isn't unjust, it's unnecessary.
[quote]What they want is the ability to say "You must be a Christian to hold office, get married, have a family, etc."[/quote]
I think we can all agree that this is A Bad Thing (tm). I think it's good that you take a public stand by criticising that sort of assumption, and I think it's good that you call for people to change their minds and vote differently. But I don't see that the bill you quoted above enforces that belief. In fact, I think it leans in the other direction; it talks about religious content and beliefs, not christian content. In fact, I think it could be interpreted as protection to express atheistic belief.
I read this blog because I'm a mac administrator, but I like the fact that you advocate common sense. I enjoy that you will engage in the discussions and arguments that some people have here. I just wish you didn't sometimes come across quite so dogmatically because I think it undermines your valid and important points.
Posted by:
Tom Hillman |
May 15, 2008 4:22 AM
Ah, dammit, guessed wrong. How do you do quotes on here, anyway?
Posted by:
Tom Hillman |
May 15, 2008 4:22 AM
