Ohio Snowflakes Seek Safe Space from Science

November 14, 2019

WKRC Cincinnati:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) – Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.

The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the “Student Religious Liberties Act.” Under the law, students can’t be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.

Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.

Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.

House Bill 164 by Local12WKRC on Scribd

11 Responses to “Ohio Snowflakes Seek Safe Space from Science”

  1. Sec. 3320.03 No school district board of education, governing authority of a community school established under Chapter 3314 of the Revised Code, governing body of a STEM school established under Chapter 3326 of the Revised Code, or board of trustees of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328 of the Revised Code shall prohibit a student from engaging in religious expression in the completion of homework, artwork, or other written or oral assignments. Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student’s work.

    Sec. 3326.11. Each science, technology, engineering, and mathematics school established under this chapter and its governing body shall comply with sections {….3320.01,3320.02,3320.03,…}

  2. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Religious power leads to religious dictatorship. Know history or repeat it. This is Scary!

    • indy222 Says:

      Our clear model is to “know history AND repeat it”. The BornAgain’s can’t wait for the Rapture – when their final victory over all those smarties they feel inferior to, will be complete.

  3. Gingerbaker Says:

    Of all the 1st Amendment freedoms, why religion is consistently more privileged than all the others is absurd.

    Imagine arguing that disallowing children the “right” to disrupt classes by shouting is an abrogation of their freedom of speech. Or that skipping school completely and hanging out en masse at the pool hall is an abrogation of their right to assemble.

    One might as well argue that children should not be marked down for getting wrong answers on written science tests because to do so is a violation of their freedom of the press. And surely their inviolate right to freedom of expression means there can be no “right” or “wrong” answers on tests, because they have the right to say whatever they want, right?

    Religion has been given far too many privileges in a nation founded on the principle of secularism.

    • doldrom Says:

      The nation is not founded on the principle of secularism, far from it. The word secular does not appear in the constitution. Nor does anything close to the concept of separation of church and state, in fact, the concept of ‘the state” is nowhere mentioned. “State” always refers to one or more of the constituent states. Nor does the term “church” occur.

      In fact, the context makes clear that the “free speech” is not the right to blurt out anything any time, but in fact prohibits constraints to conscience in the broadest sense. (e.g., shouting during a music performance is not a matter of conscience or “freedom of speech”)

      The actual context is the interference in church/beliefs by authorities. The converse, preventing the institutional church from meddling in elections is nowhere mentioned. A broad separation between religion and politics or matters of government would have been inconceivable at the time and impossible to sustain at any time, but it seems few people can distinguish between the concept of keeping religious and political institutions separate from the concept of separating religion and politics. It’s like learning or justice. Just because you have a beef with schools or with courts does not mean you don’t think learning or justice are important.

      Far from proscribing religion, the framers sought to keep it from being captured by authorities.

      That said, an appeal to religion for not being able to calculate 2^13 or which year the Persians attacked Sparta or any other subject matter in a curriculum, deserves a grade of zero.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        “The nation is not founded on the principle of secularism, far from it. The word secular does not appear in the constitution.”

        You need to do some reading on the topic. The US Constitution was an astonishing document because of its secularity. The word “God”
        and concepts of the religious basis of government were highly conspicuous by its absence compared to virtually all comparators. And this was by design, because almost all of the Founders were not religious Christians, but were Deists.

        What IS in the document are 1st Amendment protections for non-Christian religious expression, including secularism and atheism, as well as an injunction against religious purity tests for candidates (Article VI, Clause 3)

        Both of these elements are interpreted as the basis for Jefferson’s explicit use of the phrase “separation of church and State” in his letter on the topic to the Danbury Baptists; all of these points have been mentioned and form the basis for multiple decisions and precedents of the Supreme Court.
        from wiki:

        “The phrase “separation between church & state” is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

        Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”[1]”

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    I first taught biology in 1963. When we started the unit on genetics and evolution, several students presented me with pamphlets and even a small book on “why evolution was wrong” and against their religious beliefs. I thanked them and told them to take their concerns up with their religion teacher (if and when we ever got such a course in a public high school), that they were enrolled in a SCIENCE course, and since evolution was one of the cornerstones of biological science, they were expected to learn about evolution and take the tests (or fail that unit).

    Told them they were welcome to write an “I don’t believe this—it’s against my religion” disclaimer on all homework and tests pertaining to evolution, but that failure to do the work would result in grades of ZERO. Also told them that it was the mark of an educated and thinking person to understand what it was they didn’t agree with—-some responded well to that. Communicated all this to their parents alsol, and got no backlash from them.

    Since things have gotten so much crazier over the past 50+ years, I would expect things to blow up more today in the less-enlightened parts of the country (like Ohio). Teaching evolution was never a problem in Fairfax County, VA, where the community was more highly educated and more liberal, although I DID have to spend some time as an administrator with parents who objected to certain reading assignments in English classes. Their kids were embarrassed by having to have special substitute assignments and leave class—they just wanted to do what everyone else was doing. Their teachers did NOT appreciate the extra work involved in these alternate lessons either.

    This is all just another symptom of where the right is taking the country. I’ll say it again, folks—-vote out Repugnants at EVERY level of government and support the Blue Wave in 2020 if you want the country to survive.

    • jimbills Says:

      That sounds like an excellent compromise. Nowadays those same people would just send their kids to a Christian school, instead, though.

      We’re now officially in the ‘post-truth’ era, complete with a President that denies basic reality on a daily basis:

      The internet and media allows people to just get one side of a story if they want, and the vast majority opt for comforting confirmation bias. I don’t really see anything that can offset this in a meaningful way – I just see it getting worse and worse – like social media creating its own set of troubles.

  5. Bryson Brown Says:

    This is (always was) a more important issue than most people seem to understand. False beliefs have consequences– and the habit of doubling down against inconvenient evidence extends far beyond the age of the earth and the history of life.

  6. ubrew12 Says:

    “an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force”

    “Look, teach, MAYBE among the secularists that appears to be true…”

Leave a Reply to charleszeller Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: