The editorial is concerning HB 2211, or the "Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Acts". I like the title. Religion, despite my feelings toward it, shouldn't be discriminated against. We all have a right to believe in whatever we desire.
However, unlike race and sex, which are variables determined by genetics and thus are not determined by our conscious, religion isn't free from criticism and being simply wrong about the universe. Yes, I can "respect" your belief that a flying spaghetti monster created a mountain, a tree, and a midget. That doesn't mean it is correct, and since it isn't correct in light of other evidence determined through the scientific method, that position isn't science. It's "correct" relative to your mindset, which if you believe in such things is the mindset of a disadvantaged two-year old[1].
With that being said, the Oklahoma bill disturbs me. Parts of it seem redundant, others seem like unnecessary hurdles. For an example of redundancy, consider this tidbit:
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. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.Is this necessary? It seems like common sense that if a student was to write "JESUS LOVES YOU" or "GOD HATES FAGS" for every blank in a short-essay question, s/he would be penalized for not answering the question as per standard academic practice. It is the equivalent of getting the answer wrong, because s/he did get the answer wrong. "Goddidit" makes no sense in a question about chemistry, biology, American history, or world literature[2]. It makes no sense in civics, geography, music theory, or mathematics. What is the purpose of this clause but only being redundant?
The editorial claims it gives a back door for students supplying incorrect answers without being penalized. I disagree. They will still be penalized for giving non-answers or wrong answers. Unless I'm not reading it correctly, I don't see the fear of students being able to undermind sound science with fables about forbidden fruits, talking snakes, mud, a tower of turtles, lightning, hammers, beer, midgets, and any other object associated with creation mythologies. If they don't supply the correct answer, they don't get credit for the question.
I admit that I know very little about the consequences of the rest of the bill, which desires to allow students to speak religiously if they so desire without censorship. Perhaps the editorial is right in this department. I never attended public school, so my experience in (a secular, pluralistic) private school has no barings in this conversation. But in high school, if a student got on his/her soapbox and ranted about God/Jesus/Buddha/Mohamed, I did what I do now: ignored them.
Ultimately, who cares? So what if you think I'm going to hell/not enlightened/won't get virgins[3]. I think you're a fuckwit for believing in the writings of ancient goat herders. Yet somehow the world continues on despite our differences.
Eh, a good rant to let out the stress of week-before-spring-break syndrome. Now, I must finish optimizing my gaussians to stick them into my algorithm.
-----------------------------
[1] Okay, that was mean to disadvantaged two-year olds, but the one-year-olds sued me last year over a previous comment. Here's hoping the toddler lobby is too busy whining about dropping binky to notice my snide comments.
[2] I guess that depends on the story being read.
[3] Dammit! Okay, maybe I want those, but I'm too lazy to work for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment