Editors: In response to Jason Reese's February 9 Commentary about legislative morality I would like to say that it's one thing for Mr. Reese to have the courage of his personal convictions, but it's quite another thing to urge passage of legislation that would use the police power of the state to impose his convictions on others.
There is an old legal truism about arguing either the law or the truth when one of them is on your side, or resorting to pounding your fist on the table with as much conviction as possible when you have neither. Mr. Reese has only emotion on his side: a poor reason to use for enforcement of straitjacket laws that deal with intensely personal choices people make in their lives.
Mr. Reese is making a fetish of removing from others the freedoms that should be completely legal in a socially and religiously diverse society.
Society is not a psychiatrist's coach to use as a means to exorcise one's religious demons.
You can read Mr. Reese's op/ed here:
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10727-point-legislate-morality.html
Speaking of creationism, Mr. Reese sees "no reason why Oklahoma’s children should not be told both (really more than two) sides of the issue". This is the common position of those who want to impose their brand of religion on public school students. The fact that they have the option of home schooling or sending their kids religious schools is not good enough.
ReplyDeleteThe State has endeavored to placate these people by passing a law to allow the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, but that too, does not seem to satisfy them.
What they really want is for public school students to be taught creationism in SCIENCE classes. Creationism, of course, is NOT a scientific theory, thus, should not be in public school science curricula.
Every parent in this state is free to teach their kids whatever weird brand of religious doctrine they desire, but they should NOT be allowed to impose their beliefs on others.