I very recently wrote about the bill making its way through my state legislature that would allow the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms. At the time, it had only made it out of the Education Committee (sadly, by an 8-2 vote), but it has since gone on to pass the Senate 28-22.
This is simply unacceptable.
This afternoon, I got busy and wrote to my Representative (a Democrat), my Senator (a Republican), and my Governor (also a Republican). I wrote similar letters to all, but I reserved the most eloquence I could muster for Governor Daniels. After seeing some of the comments on a local station’s Facebook post about the bill, it only strengthens my belief that the last thing we need is to inject religion into our public schools, especially when it comes to science classes. It was amazing to see the misconceptions and downright perplexing ideas being voiced there, everything from “I say we let the kids decide!” to “Macro evolution hasn’t been proved, because you’ve never seen a species give birth to a new species” to that Golden Oldie “Man didn’t come from apes.” I’m happy to report that my head didn’t explode.
Anyway, here is what I wrote to Governor Daniels. I encourage my fellow Hoosiers who want to see a strong and vibrant scientific community and education in our state to write to your own legislators (if you aren’t sure who they are, you can find them here); I would even encourage anyone from out-of-state to write if you feel that this is an important issue. Who knows? Your state could be next.
Dear Governor Daniels,
I am writing in regards to SB 89, the bill under consideration in the Indiana Congress that would allow the teaching of creationism in our public school science classrooms. As I have watched the bill move out of committee and pass the Senate, I have grown increasingly appalled.
According to a study reported by Bloomberg and many others, America's schoolchildren rank 25th out of 34 countries in science education. It simply boggles my mind that Indiana's solution to this would be to inject a religious belief into our science classrooms.
Creationism has nothing to do with science. It is a creation myth that comes from a religious text, and as such has no place in a science classroom; some try to call it a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. Let me reiterate: it is a religious belief. Contrary to what some might think, most of us opposed to this bill do not wish that creationism never be mentioned. I would have no problem with it being discussed in a comparative religions class, a philosophy class, or a religious literature class. But keep it out of the science classroom.
Although we have differed on some issues lately, I truly believe that you want what is best for our state. You wish to create policies that will make us more business-friendly, and keep our best and brightest students in-state. Allowing this bill to become law will have the opposite effect. It will make us a laughingstock among the scientific community.
It will also result in an immediate challenge by organizations like the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and after millions of Indiana taxpayer dollars are spent in defense of this foolish and shortsighted bill, it will certainly be struck down by a higher court as unconstitutional. Similar cases in Louisiana and Pennsylvania have resulted in exactly that outcome. As someone who claims to be fiscally responsible, please don't force our taxpayer dollars to be spent on such a defense.
Please do not let this bill become Indiana law. As someone who spent her entire career in science, it breaks my heart that we are attempting to reverse advances in science by several decades. Veto this bill if it reaches your desk. The integrity of Indiana's science education depends upon it.
First of all, I want to thank everyone for the words of encouragement on my previous entry. Sometimes it really does get to me, but mostly I remain insatiably curious about politics and committed to calling people out on their lies. It made me feel good to know that some of you enjoy my rantings, and as I told a friend, if even one person stops to look at an issue in a different light because of something I wrote, it would make me very happy. I also liked Nance's idea of following a 2:1 ratio on serious vs not-so-serious posts. That's not a bad idea, and I'm going to think on that a bit. In the meantime, I want to write today about a non-controversial topic, one that shouldn't ruffle anyone's feathers: the National Day of Prayer.
I'm a little bit evil, I know.
Okay, most of you have probably seen that there was quite the hullabaloo, a veritable mêlée, and one might even call it a brouhaha, over the National Day of Prayer last week. Forwarded emails abounded, and several Facebook updates denigrated President Obama for abolishing the NDP. That wasn't true; he merely called off the celebration at the White House. The NDP went ahead as planned. However, US District judge Barbara Crabb of Wisconsin issued a ruling declaring that the NDP was unconstitutional, but allowing current plans to go ahead for this year. In her ruling, Crabb stated:
No one can doubt the important role that prayer plays in the spiritual life of a believer. In the best of times, people may pray as a way of expressing joy and thanks; during times of grief, many find that prayer provides comfort. Others may pray to give praise, seek forgiveness, ask for guidance or find the truth. ... However, recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.
The Department of Justice has said that they will appeal her ruling, which shows you that I don't agree with everything that President Obama does.
I think her ruling is a good one, a constitutional one. Not everyone agrees, of course. Cue the video.
The mind-numbing level of delusion here is astounding. O'Reilly and Palin engage in mutual masturbation in declaring that oh yes indeed, our country was founded on Christian principles, our Constitution was based on Christian beliefs, and that our laws follow the ten commandments and the God of the Bible. This is simply not true, and if either of these nimrods would learn a little about history and do the tiniest bit of research they'd find out that in fact, the exact opposite is true. Our founding fathers (Palin likes "all of 'em," dontcha know?) purposefully and pointedly excluded God from our Constitution, and made sure that it was clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I am bothered and bewildered (but definitely not bewitched) by the current thinking that our country was founded on the Christian religion, and the assertion that our founding fathers were worshippers. This is far from the truth. Most of the shapers of our country and government were deists, believing that while there might be a supreme being, after he got everything going, he stepped back and let us take over completely. They did not see the divine hand of God in anything, and did their best to ensure that our republic was founded upon reason, logic, and good governance rather than religious beliefs.
If you have some time, if you are curious at all about whether what I write here is true, I urge you to take a little time to read a few entries on another blog. It is not merely opinion; there are many references provided. (A big thanks to Darren for posting this on Facebook. It was fascinating reading, and I feel it lays out the argument beautifully. I owe you one!)
Part II - deism and the thoughts of some of Jefferson's contemporaries
Part III - Washington and his rejection of communion; John Adams
Part IV - discussion of the religious affiliation of early colonists; after escaping persecution in England, they were quite unwilling to revisit such behavior; only about 1 in 15 were affiliated with a church
So why the objection to a National Day of Prayer? (And no, it does not date back to the Constitutional Convention; no prayers were said at that gathering.) Those who are staunch defenders of the Constitution should get this one. The writers of the Constitution and the framers of our republic expressly forbade any government promotion of a religion. No, the NDP is not a mandate in that it does not force anyone to pray upon the threat that they will be prosecuted for not doing so. However, the NDP was pushed through in the 50s by evangelical Christians, and today is actively promoted by Focus on the Family, an organization founded by evangelical Christian James Dobson. The chairman of the NDP Task Force is Shirley Dobson, wife of James. Franklin Graham was pissed off because he was uninvited from the Pentagon prayer session because of his statements that Islam is a wicked and evil religion. The NDP is most certainly an evangelical Christian endeavor; do they also promote prayers to Allah? Buddha? Perhaps a prayer (and maybe a sacrifice) to an Aztec god? Of course not. This day actively promotes one particular type of religion, and our government has no constitutional right to do so. None.
In the video I posted, when asked why Judge Crabb ruled against the NDP, Sarah Palin says:
It...it is that world view that I think...uh...involves some...um...uh...some people being afraid of...of being able to discuss our foundation, being able to discuss God in the public square...some fear of some people.
As always, it's a little difficult to understand what Sarah is trying to say, but I think she means that some of us don't want to discuss religion. That couldn't be further from the truth. Many of us have had many discussions of religion over the years, and many of us have done our research rather than bleating like a sheep about how America is a Christian nation. Many of us DO respect the Constitution rather than just giving it lip service, and many of us understand that our founding fathers were not religious individuals, much less religious bigots. They were visionaries who understood that just as religion needs to be protected from the government, our government needs to be protected from religion.
Dan Barker recently appeared on Fox News. Barker is the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Along with his total pwnage of the interviewer, he had a line that sums this issue up perfectly. "It is the evangelicals who are confusing neutrality with hostility." The Constitution specifies neutrality in matters of religion. The government can neither force us to worship a certain deity or follow a certain religion; neither can they stop anyone from worshipping who they want. No one is saying that people can't worship the way they choose, follow the god they choose. You can pray to your heart's desire, if that is what you choose to do. However, my government--and it is mine every bit as much as yours--cannot dictate to me or anyone else what religion is best, promote prayer, or even suggest any sort of worship.
For those who would continue to believe that we are a Christian nation, or founded upon Christian principles, I suggest you do a little more research. I am not saying that you cannot practice your religion. No one is saying that. I'm simply saying that you cannot force my government to suggest your religion to me.
I very recently wrote about the bill making its way through my state legislature that would allow the teaching of creationism in public school science classrooms. At the time, it had only made it out of the Education Committee (sadly, by an 8-2 vote), but it has since gone on to pass the Senate 28-22. 
