A colleague phoned Representative Jones' office on Tuesday to advise him that I would like to speak in opposition to the bill as it came before the Education Committee on Wednesday. She was informed that no input from citizens would be permitted.
I decided it was unusual for citizens to be barred from giving input at Capitol hearings. Under previous leadership at the state capitol, citizen input was welcome but often limited to one or two minutes. So, I went to the state capitol and attended the committee meeting. Citizens were permitted to give input on the other legislation that came before the committee, but I was not permitted to speak against HB 2211.
Had I been permitted to speak, expecting to be limited to a one minute presentation, this is what I would have said:
Mainstream Baptists oppose H.B. 2211 because it is too weak to adequately protect religious liberty and freedom of speech for all people.When legislators exercise "viewpoint discrimination" to pass their legislation, it's hard to see how it will be good for our public schools. Jones has set precedent for how to protect the approved viewpoint and stifle opposing perspectives.
Prayer is an act of worship. To suggest otherwise is to trivialize faith and belittle religion. Religious devotions and expressions are also acts of worship.
This nation was founded by people who refused to become a captive audience -- forced to listen to the prayers and preaching being led by the Church of England. That is why the Pilgrims came to America. That is why my Baptist forefathers came to America.
As written, this bill puts students in the same position as the early Pilgrims, Baptists, and Quakers. You will make them a captive audience -- forced listen to the prayers, preaching and devotions of people with whom their own conscience and convictions may forbid them to worship.
To correct this injustice, your legislation needs a conscience clause. It needs to be amended to permit anyone -- regardless of their position and status within the school -- to leave the room when prayers, preaching and devotions are being conducted. You also need to make it a crime for anyone to belittle, berate, bully or penalize any person who exercises their own first amendment right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience by leaving the room during these acts.
4 comments:
Here's a link to an article in the Dallas Morning News about the effect of this law on Texas:
Watch The Lawsuits Come Pouring In.
Are people like Tad Jones, ever going to realize that bills like this are exactly what the 1st Amendment means when it says congress shall make NO LAW concerning the establishment of religion? I do not blame the non-believing people of Oklahoma or Texas or any other state who are fed up with well-meaning Christians who keep trying to circumvent the constitution and continually wasting tax-payer funds with this kind of nonsense.
I grew up the son of a baptist preacher, and am now a devout agnostic, and as such don't really read many religeous blogs, I've found that the majority of the "religeous" of our country are too busy going about pushing their ideals on someone to realize that the pushee has as much right to his or her ideals as the pusher. This article, on the other hand, spoke of fairness, fairness to all, including those of a different point of view. Very refreshing, thank you sir.
Freedom is not free. It requires constant vigil against those who would control our minds. Right now we have false prophets in our state legislature. It involves HB 2211 which is known as the Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act. I applaud Dr. Bruce Prescott for speaking out in the Mainstream Baptist against Oklahoma HB 2211.
http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2008/02/regarding-viewpoint-discrimination.html
In 2005, A Pennsylvania judge struck down a similar attempt by the Dover School Board to force teaching Intelligent Design as science.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html
There are racial implications in these efforts. In the 19th Century, Louis Agassiz used creation doctrine to argue that all races were created simultaneously (Polygenesis) and that "separate but equal" was God's plan. His arguments were cited in the
U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson in 1890 which upheld segregation. Eventually, segregation was overturned the Supreme Court in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education).
Post a Comment