We first wrote about this proposed legislation here, Alabama Creationism Bill for 2012, and then we found an unusually informative article that fully explained the bill’s nonsensical intent (see The Purpose of Alabama’s Creationism Bill).
We’re speaking of HB133. If you click on that website, then you’ll have to click on “Bills” in the margin, and then “Status” and then enter “HB133″ to receive minimal information. Want more? If you then click on the HB133 button, you’re allowed to click on “View” at the top of the window. That gives you a little popup window that has the bill’s text. But we provided that in our first post on this thing, so save yourself the trouble.
The bill, introduced into the House by Blaine Galliher, would give high school academic credit for religious instruction during school hours, as long as such classes were conducted off-campus by teachers who aren’t employed by the state, and the students’ transportation couldn’t be at state expense.
In other words, there is such an unnatural craving for creationism in the public schools that the legislature is seriously considering this bizarre scheme of authorizing not only official state approval for such “back alley” classes, but the state will also grant academic credit for whatever goes on in such creationist madrasahs. As we reported in our most recent post:
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, R-Indian Springs, said Galliher’s bill would be debated the week of Feb. 28 in the House of Representatives’ Education Policy Committee, which she chairs.
“It looks like it’s a very viable way to offer some elective courses for kids that have many opportunities for electives,” McClurkin said. “To me, this would be a real good one, to be able to study religion.”
Mary Sue thinks it’s a glorious plan, so how’s it going? Well, today at the website al.com, the online presence for three Alabama newspapers, the Birmingham News, the Huntsville Times and Mobile’s Press-Register, we read Alabama House could debate religious instruction bill as soon as next week. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
A city or county school board could let high school students be excused from school to attend classes in religious instruction conducted by churches or other private groups, under a plan that could be debated by the House of Representatives as soon as next week.
The House Education Policy Committee approved the plan, House Bill 133, on a voice vote today.
By “today” they mean 29 February. Mary Sue came through!
Then the article gives a brief summary of the bill, the terms of which you already know, and after that they quote the bill’s sponsor:
Galliher said he sponsored the bill at the request of one of his constituents, Joseph Kennedy, a member of Southside Baptist Church near Gadsden. Kennedy said he would like to see a non-profit group teach creationism to public school students if Galliher’s bill becomes law.
Galliher said that, under his bill, other groups could offer classes on Judaism or on the history of the Bible, for instance. “I’m not dictating,” he said.
Maybe he’s not dictating, but he’s drooling, soiling his trousers, and announcing to the world that he’s a creationist maniac. But we already knew that.
Hey — hold on a minute! We have an inspiration. If this thing becomes law, perhaps your Curmudgeon will set up an off-campus class in abstinence, just for female students. We’ll provide our own transportation by limousine, and we’ll give each young lady personal instruction in how to resist our Curmudgeonly advances. Best of all, the state will give the girls academic credit for the experience. This is a great idea! We’ll send a proposal to Mary Sue McClurkin — we’re certain she’ll approve.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Curmie said:
That’s a little creepy.
A little creepy, but truly inspired none the less.
Lynn Wilhelm says: “That’s a little creepy.”
Yes. When the students are transported off campus, with no way to get back except their instructor’s vehicle, and there are no state personnel around to supervise, it certainly can get creepy. That’s precisely the point.
Creepy enough when read as a mere proposal, but it is exceeded in creepiness by the actual “Promise Ring” virginity ’till marriage ceremonies that the actual fathers of those kids subject their daughters to at their friendly neighborhood fundagelical churches.
This would open the doors to a lot of creepy and just plain weird classes, although in practice I doubt many kids would opt to leave school for religious training of any sort. The ones that might be interested are probably home schooled already.
However, if there was interest in it, the law would allow such classes as:
“Intro to Sharia Law”, taught at the local mosque. Boys and girls separately, of course.
“Strengths and Weaknesses of Religious Belief”, taught by a local atheist group.
“Intro to Witchcraft”, taught by a Wiccan group. Pointy hats and robes provided for a small fee. Especially popular with Harry Potter fans.
“Voodoo and It’s Place in Modern Society”, with special doll-making workshop.
“Use of Peyote in Religious Practice”, materials provided by the instructor.
The more I think of it, the more I like this idea.
There is already a system in place for getting academic credit for study outside of a public school.
It’s called HOMESCHOOLING.
What they’re really after is to transfer HOMESCHOOLING credits to public school transcripts.
In fact, a bunch of HOMESCHOOLERS could get together, rent a location, pool their resources and teach several subjects. But, that’s being done, too.
It’s called PRIVATE SCHOOL.
They could do it at a common location for free on day of the week, say, Sunday. But, that’s already being done, too.
It’s called SUNDAY SCHOOL.
So, ladies and germs, with three options already available for providing ample instruction about the Flood and Victoria’s Secret, why the obsession about public school? Sounds like a bad case of “Because We Say So” syndrome.
I don’t see how this is going to withstand an entanglement challenge. If the instructors aren’t accredited, its probably illegal. If the curriculum isn’t approved by the school, its probably illegal. But accrediting the instructors or the curricula will entangle the state in sectrarian religious decisions, like who is qualified to teach that religion.
SC: “…the state will also grant academic credit for whatever goes on in such creationist madrasahs.”
Apt choice of words, Curmy. It’s almost a 100% certainty that an Islamist group would offer classes in Islam, and the Moslem students would definitely be interested in receiving credit on their transcripts.
I was going to say much more, but Ed already said it very well. The bigger problem is in Indiana, where it is not just a bill, but already a law, and it not only confers credit, but uses state funds to pay for the religious schooling. In Indiana, it’s much more likely that the “schools” suggested by Ed would actually be formed, because the school operators get state money.
While we are on the subject of cults, did anyone else see the exposé of Scientology on ABC’s “Nightline” last night?
Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think this bill is as insidious as you make out. For several years my kids attended Hebrew school after regular school, and it was not out of some desire to teach them creationism, it was to teach them Hebrew. We often lamented the extra load and wished that they could get standard foreign language credit to lighten their load. By the same token, there is a desire locally to allow after school sports count as physical education credit.
blu28: There shouldn’t be any problem with students getting credit for learning Hebrew as a language offsite. The public schools could accredit the class without any issues of dictating what kind of religious instruction is given, as long as the credit is received for learning the language, not studying Judaism.
Same would apply to Moslem students learning Arabic offsite, Hindu students learning the Hindu language, etc.
However, students receiving science credits for being taught “Creation Science” in the local First Baptist, well, that’s another issue. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that “Creation Science” is religion, not science.
Of course. There is no question that they shouldn’t get science units for this.