Colorado’s Creationism & Theocracy Bill

WE haven’t had much to report about Colorado, but today we’re going to make up for that. A state legislator has come up with a whole new legislative approach to sneaking creationism into state schools. This wonder was introduced by state senator Dave Schultheis.

You can track the history of Dave’s new bill as it works its way through the legislative process here: Summarized History for Bill Number SB10-089.

Dave’s bill was introduced on 20 January and assigned to the state Senate’s Judiciary Committee. On 15 February that committee took some kind of action to postpone indefinitely any further action — whatever that means.

What’s the bill all about? You can read it here: SENATE BILL 10-089 (pdf file). With bold provided by us, the summary says:

The bill establishes the “Religious Bill of Rights for Individuals Connected to Public Schools Act” (act), which requires the state board of education (state board) to adopt a religious bill of rights for public school students and parents and a religious bill of rights for public school teachers and employees (religious bills of rights) outlining each party’s respective inalienable individual religious rights.

The state board shall distribute the religious bills of rights to school district boards of education (local boards), and each local board shall adopt policies and procedures to implement the act, including the annual distribution of the religious bills of rights to students, parents, teachers, and employees of the school district. Additionally, local boards of education shall provide opt-out provisions to individuals for classes or course materials that are in conflict with the individual’s religious beliefs.

The bill provides that individual members of local boards are personally liable for lawsuits brought under the act if the local board fails to adopt policies and procedures to implement the act or to ensure compliance with the act.

We already have a Bill of Rights attached to the US Constitution, and it provides for religious freedom. We haven’t checked, but we assume the Colorado state Constitution has a similar provision. So what’s this bill supposed to do that isn’t already done? The bill is 11 pages long, but that won’t deter us. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us. Sorry about the all caps, but that’s how Colorado does it:

(1) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES THAT:

(a) THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE INDIVIDUALS CERTAIN BASIC RELIGIOUS RIGHTS;

(b) MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE UNAWARE OF THEIR EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. BECAUSE THESE RIGHTS ARE COMING UNDER INCREASING ATTACK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, A METHOD TO RECOGNIZE, PROMOTE, AND ENFORCE THESE RIGHTS IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS, AND EMPLOYEES.

Aha! Religious rights are coming under increasing attack. This sounds serious! Let’s read on:

THE RELIGIOUS BILL OF RIGHTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NEED NOT BE LIMITED TO, A DECLARATION THAT A PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENT HAS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO:

(I) EXPRESS HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS OR AT A SCHOOL-SPONSORED EVENT TO THE SAME EXTENT AS HE OR SHE MAY EXPRESS A PERSONAL SECULAR VIEWPOINT;

(II) PARTICIPATE IN A PRIVATE RELIGIOUS CEREMONY HELD ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS OUTSIDE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TIME TO THE SAME EXTENT AS HE OR SHE MAY PARTICIPATE IN A PRIVATE SECULAR ACTIVITY OR CEREMONY OUTSIDE OF INSTRUCTIONAL TIME;

(III) EXCHANGE A GREETING CARD OR OTHER ITEM WITH A RELIGIOUS THEME;

(IV) SING RELIGIOUS SONGS ALONG WITH SECULAR SONGS AS PART OF A SCHOOL-SPONSORED OR CURRICULUM-RELATED PROGRAM;

(V) USE A RELIGIOUS GREETING;

(VI) WEAR RELIGIOUS GARB ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLOTHING WITH A RELIGIOUS MESSAGE;

(VII) EXPRESS HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR SELECT RELIGIOUS MATERIALS WHEN RESPONDING TO A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT IF HIS OR HER RESPONSE REASONABLY MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT; AND

(VIII) RECITE RELIGIOUS MATERIAL WHEN AN ORAL RECITATION IS ASSIGNED IF THE MATERIAL FAIRLY MEETS THE EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT.

But that’s not all. The bill continues:

THE RELIGIOUS BILL OF RIGHTS FOR TEACHERS AND EMPLOYEES OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NEED NOT BE LIMITED TO, A DECLARATION THAT A TEACHER OR AN EMPLOYEE OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL HAS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO:

(I) TEACH A RELIGIOUS TOPIC IN PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR HISTORICAL, LITERARY, OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE RELIGIOUS ORIGINS OF VARIOUS HOLIDAYS;

(II) DISPLAY RELIGIOUS MATERIALS AND ITEMS THAT DIRECTLY RELATE TO A TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED IN THE CLASSROOM;

[…]

(V) ANSWER A STUDENT’S QUESTION ON A RELIGIOUS TOPIC;

(VI) NOT BE REQUIRED TO TEACH A TOPIC THAT VIOLATES HIS OR HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND NOT BE DISCIPLINED FOR REFUSING TO TEACH THE TOPIC;

(VII) WEAR RELIGIOUS JEWELRY; AND

(VIII) USE A RELIGIOUS GREETING AS A RECOGNITION OF A RELIGIOUS HOLIDAY.

That’s enough to give you the general idea. If Dave’s bill becomes law, Colorado schools may become virtual madrasahs, where religious garb, jewelry, chants, and teachings are permitted. Not only that, but teachers can skip lessons — like evolution, biology, astronomy, etc. — that conflict with their religious beliefs.

We’ll be watching this one.

Update: According to the Colorado Independent: Controversial Schultheis public schools religion bill ends in a whimper:

A controversial bill that sought to expand space for religion in Colorado’s public schools failed to make it out of committee Monday. Even before the hearing began, the bill’s sponsor, Christian conservative state Sen. Dave Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, seemed to have accepted the fact that his “Public School Religious Bill of Rights” would very likely fail to pass and so offered amendments that significantly weakened its provisions. In the end, so little was left of the bill that the majority Democratic committee members said it simply offered no new provisions on the matter. In the end, the four Democrats voted against the bill and the three Republicans voted for it.

The article says that Dave promoted a similar bill in 2007, which also died in committee.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Colorado’s Creationism & Theocracy Bill

  1. Sigh. Nothing like a bill that affirms rights the students already have (heck nothing stops them from reciting religious tracks in biology except the whole its an incorrect answer for the question) and then goes off and destroys those basic rights by allowing government employees (public school teachers) to preach in schools. Pretty standard approach by the fundamentals to not realize the rights they do have are threatened by the actions they advocate.

  2. Interesting bill, but leaves me to speculate about how they would handle a teacher holding forth that Christ was a misguided prophet, and Mohamed was the greatest one of god. Which is protected under the bill as it is phrased.

  3. What about the other rights that students and teachers frequently have denied, like the right to bear arms?

  4. Freedom for Pastafarians?

  5. Would this also mean that teachers would have protection to say that they hate religion and it should be banned? That’s freedom of religion too. The repercussions could be very interesting if this passes.

  6. Albanaeon says: “The repercussions could be very interesting if this passes.”

    I’m not sure what’s going on in Colorado, but while searching around I found an article that says the bill’s already dead. That seems remarkably quick. I added an “update” to the end of the post with that information.

  7. Yeah, the 2/15 notice of “indefinite postponement” is govspeak for “this bill is dead.”

  8. “In the end, the four Democrats voted against the bill and the three Republicans voted for it.”

    Rather disappointing to see issues like this come down to a strict party-line vote. It seems more often nowadays that our representatives vote for their party and not on the merits of the bills.

  9. With a 4 -3 split though the Republicans can safely vote a party line to keep the fundamentalist support happy, while knowing it can not pass. *shrugs* it will be a more telling vote if keeping to party lines would have caused a different outcome.

  10. Did I miss a law that bans all non-public schools and homeschooling?

  11. This guys bills all get voted down because he is wrong on everything.

    He was the only one to vote for a pay raise for rural senators while billing himself as a fiscal conservative.

    Move along nothing to see here.

  12. Too quick on the update. As I was reading this, my thought instantly was, “Not a chance in hell of this coming anywhere close to passing.” It’s a show-off bill, the sort that the sponsor knows very well is going no-where, but allows him to get fundamentalist cred.

    I’ll bet the guy is a regular habitue’ of massage parlors.

  13. retiredsciguy

    Maybe Dave Schultheis is really interested in promoting witchcraft, which would also be protected by his bill. Can’t the fundamentalists see this?

  14. retiredsciguy: “Maybe Dave Schultheis is really interested in promoting witchcraft, which would also be protected by his bill. Can’t the fundamentalists see this?”

    Bobby Jindal’s exorcism and Michael Medved’s Bigfoot would also be protected. And those are just the anti-evolution activists who endorse other pseudosciences. Because of what I call the “pseudoscience code of silence” every creationist/IDer gives some sort of free pass to all pseudosciences.

  15. I don’t think that these guys mind that the language of their bills might protect, say, preaching Islam in class. For one, they probably figure any God is better than Darwin. For two, they are counting on an overwhelming Christian majority–Muslim proselytizers can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

    Remember that our religious freedom laws were set up with pretty much protecting Protestants from each other–Catholics weren’t even allowed to hold office in some states.

  16. Gabriel Hanna says:

    Remember that our religious freedom laws were set up with pretty much protecting Protestants from each other–Catholics weren’t even allowed to hold office in some states.

    That’s part of it. The Founders were also aware of the devastating religious wars in Europe, and the squabbles in various colonies here in the US. And there was also the still vivid memory of the Salem witch trials. They really wanted to keep the government secular, so that all the multitudinous sects could flourish or wither on their own, without official subsidies or harassment. It made a lot of sense. Still does.