So much for schools in Oklahoma...

2008-03-09 18:22:44

#1

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|6956|San Francisco

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.co … icals.html

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_ … 25346.html

The Oklahoma House of Reps just passed this bill which basically allows students to supply answers on tests based on their own personal religious backgrounds and beliefs and not be penalized; teachers who give students poor marks for supplying non-factual information on an exam (Such as saying "God did it!" or announcing that the Earth is 6,000 years old) will be in violation of the law.

The bill is on its way to the Senate. Hopefully it doesn't pass. If it does, then it definitely is a sad state of affairs for education in OK. Just one more horrible "religious right" agenda to further destroy education in this country.

2008-03-09 18:25:20

#2

krazed: Admiral of the Bathtub; +619|7042|Great Brown North

hmm, how far would this be taken? could i put that the flying spaghetti monster causes all things to happen and still get a 100% on it?

2008-03-09 18:26:16

#3

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6673|'Murka

Things have certainly changed since I was in school in OK. I hope the Senate does the right thing and crushes this.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-03-09 18:30:23

#4

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|6956|San Francisco

More than likely. In fact, if it does pass and kids start using answers that Don't come from a christian sect, we'd see a new breeding ground for religious upheaval in the country. Another breach of the church and state separation backed by the christian coalition unveiled when they get mad as other faiths start utilizing their ruling.

How long until someone gets expelled for saying "Lord Satan made the Hydrogen and Oxygen to combine to make water. Hail Lucifer!" or "Moby Dick and Ahab are all encompassed by Allah, therefore all is at peace" and then the inevitable lawsuits popping up about what religions are actually covered by this bill...

2008-03-09 18:33:10

#5

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7023

Yikes....."fundamental christian lawyers"

That is worse than an akmed with some C4.

2008-03-09 18:35:36

#6

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6780|Montucky

so.. the sqaure root of 60 could be 9.39825 because god says so.

2008-03-09 18:55:08

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6667|North Carolina

Marconius wrote:
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/03/special-rights-for-religious-radicals.html

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_ … 25346.html

The Oklahoma House of Reps just passed this bill which basically allows students to supply answers on tests based on their own personal religious backgrounds and beliefs and not be penalized; teachers who give students poor marks for supplying non-factual information on an exam (Such as saying "God did it!" or announcing that the Earth is 6,000 years old) will be in violation of the law.

The bill is on its way to the Senate. Hopefully it doesn't pass. If it does, then it definitely is a sad state of affairs for education in OK. Just one more horrible "religious right" agenda to further destroy education in this country.

It's Oklahoma... What do you expect?

2008-03-09 18:59:48

#8

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6707|The Land of Scott Walker

In a public forum and when appropriate during discussion in class, the right for a student to express their views (religious or not) should be protected. However, answering science questions according to what is taught in the curriculum doesn't infringe on anyone's religious freedom, so part of the law is quite ridiculous.

It appears some of you missed the part in school regarding reading the U.S Constitution. If you'd done so, you'd know separation of church and state appears nowhere in that document. Since you can ignore historical fact, why can't someone disagree with scientific theory?

2008-03-09 19:02:29

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6667|North Carolina

Separation of church and state is, indeed, not in the Constitution. It was basically just a good idea.

But don't take my word for it.... Look at what religion has done to the governments of the Middle East.

2008-03-09 19:02:48

#10

ReTox: Member; +100|6761|State of RETOXification

...watches thousands of 9 year old kids start making up religions.

2008-03-09 19:03:41

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6667|North Carolina

ReTox wrote:

...watches thousands of 9 year old kids start making up religions.

For what it's worth, some of them would likely make more sense than the adult ones.

2008-03-09 19:04:08

#12

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6707|The Land of Scott Walker

Scientists are guessing, why not everyone else?

2008-03-09 19:05:00

#13

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6667|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:
Scientists are guessing, why not everyone else?

There's a difference between guesses based on facts and guesses based on scripture.

2008-03-09 19:05:48

#14

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7023

Turquoise wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Scientists are guessing, why not everyone else?
There's a difference between guesses based on facts and guesses based on scripture.

and they're off.....

betting window is now closed.

2008-03-09 19:06:00

#15

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6709|Chicago, IL

krazed wrote:
hmm, how far would this be taken? could i put that the flying spaghetti monster causes all things to happen and still get a 100% on it?

So, this means i can stop studying right?

This law would sure make my tests a hell of a lot easier!

Why doesn't crystal field theory accurately predict the magnetic properties of octahedral hexamine complexes?

Because God made it that way.

2008-03-09 20:19:26

#16

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6392|North Tonawanda, NY

Stingray24 wrote:
It appears some of you missed the part in school regarding reading the U.S Constitution. If you'd done so, you'd know separation of church and state appears nowhere in that document. Since you can ignore historical fact, why can't someone disagree with scientific theory?

But you ignore the case law upholding a separation of church and state.

2008-03-09 20:58:32

#17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6936|Canberra, AUS

Stingray24 wrote:
Scientists are guessing, why not everyone else?

There's a difference between guessing based on words on a page and guessing based off years of research, thousands of hours of field work and countless observations. And logic.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-03-09 22:03:39

#18

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|6956|San Francisco

The Separation of Church and State does not appear in the US Constitution.

OK, while that exact PHRASE does not appear, it is the summation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

So, if you decide to read that line and attempt to come up with a completely wrong interpretation of it on purpose, I can see how you might not think State and Church shouldn't be separated in the US. Begin Historical Fact: The actual term "separation of church and state" came from Jefferson assuring that the Fed wouldn't intervene with a minority church, fearful of being run out by a larger church in the same area. A more recent foundation of the separation occurred in Everson Vs. the Board of Education in 1947.

Legislators leave religion alone in the country, religion leaves lawmaking and legislation alone (the latter is SUPPOSED to occur, but that clearly has not been the case and we finally have people noticing and fixing these trespasses). Passing laws based on non-secular grounds holding an extreme bias towards one faith is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Passing a law allowing the complete destruction of education in a State as we know it is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Are you seriously going to argue for the ability for any kid to just say "God did it!" to any question they cannot answer? No matter what subject?

2008-03-09 22:21:18

#19

m0v3m3nt: Member; +15|6419

Spark wrote:
There's a difference between guessing based on words on a page and guessing based off years of research, thousands of hours of field work and countless observations. And logic.

Yet in the end, they both boil down to faith.

2008-03-09 22:24:02

#20

Ajax_the_Great1: Dropped on request; +206|6908

Marconius wrote:
Are you seriously going to argue for the ability for any kid to just say "God did it!" to any question they cannot answer? No matter what subject?

I doubt the bill in question is that simple.

2008-03-09 22:28:26

#21

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|6956|San Francisco

Article wrote:
The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

I think my brief sentence describing the bill's intentions defines it perfectly. Religious "lawyers" want students to be awarded good grades by offering up their personal beliefs and not be penalized by basically saying "god did it."

2008-03-09 22:40:33

#22

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6936|Canberra, AUS

m0v3m3nt wrote:
Spark wrote:
There's a difference between guessing based on words on a page and guessing based off years of research, thousands of hours of field work and countless observations. And logic.
Yet in the end, they both boil down to faith.

I know that.

It's just that scientists prefer to put their faith in something more tangible, defendible and practical than mere words.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-03-09 22:58:26

#23

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6176|Glendale, CA

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

1. Explain the chemical reaction between sodium hydroxide and etholine glycol.
God did it!

2. How old are the oldest fossiles found of the T-Rex?
6,000 years old.

OMG so fucking stupid.

2008-03-10 00:09:06

#24

Protecus: Prophet of Certain Certainties; +28|6784

Oh for the love of God...

Ha, ironically, that phrase could get me an A

But seriously, if I tried to build a bridge whose beams could "support the love of God," I would be laughed out of the species

Last edited by Protecus (2008-03-10 00:10:57)

2008-03-10 00:36:15

#25

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7036|Noizyland

https://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f266/Tyferra/CHreliprin.png

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

BF2S Forums So much for schools in Oklahoma...

Marconius wrote:

ReTox wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

krazed wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Article wrote:

m0v3m3nt wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer