Read this proposed bill submitted by South Carolina State Senator Michael L. Fair:
A BILL
TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 29 OF TITLE 59 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING SUBJECTS OF INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BY ADDING SECTION 59-29-15, TO PROVIDE THAT CURRICULUM USED TO TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF MANKIND MUST MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FAITHS AND BETWEEN RELIGION AND NON-RELIGION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT CURRICULUM THAT DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE REQUIRED NEUTRALITY MUST BE REVISED OR REPLACED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Chapter 29 of Title 59 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“Section 59-29-15. (A) The General Assembly finds:
(1) that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes wholly applicable to the states the First Amendment’s mandate that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of or prohibiting the free expression of religion;
(2) that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all;
(3) a proper respect for the First Amendment compels the State to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion or the inverse;
(4) that atheism is a school of thought that takes a position on religion and the existence and importance of a Supreme Being;
(5) that the United State Supreme Court recognizes atheism as equivalent to a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment; and
(6) that teaching atheism or any of its principals, including, but not limited to, the denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, as a philosophical system of beliefs or in a manner that affirmatively opposes or shows hostility to religion, thus exhibiting a preference for those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs, violates the First Amendment.
(B) The State Board of Education shall examine all curriculum in use in this State that purports to teach students about the origins of mankind to determine whether the curriculum maintains neutrality toward religion, favoring neither one religion over other religions, nor religion over non-religion, including atheism. Related to non-religion, the examination must include a review as to whether the curriculum contains a sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who hold religious beliefs. The duty to review curriculum imposed by this section is continuing and must reoccur periodically after the initial review in order to assure compliance with this section.
(C) If the board’s examination determines that any curriculum fails to maintain the neutrality required by subsection (B), the offending curriculum must be revised or replaced as soon as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the next academic year.
(D) This section does not prevent classes being taught pursuant to Section 59-29-230.”
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Now, what the heck is going on with this bill? Have you heard of a sudden influx of atheist indoctrination in the public schools lately? Of course not. This is, pure and simple, a (not-so)-stealthy Creationism bill aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution (Whoops! Did I say evolution? I meant “origins of mankind”–my bad!) in the classroom. Follow the logic:
- The bill establishes the fact that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is considered a religious belief.
- Therefore, anything that is implicitly atheistic (like evolution) is tantamount to a tenet of the Church of Atheism.
- Therefore, teaching evolution is teaching Atheism in the public schools
- Therefore, to remedy this non-neutrality, the State of South Carolina will review the existing biology curriculum.
- Viola! South Carolina must teach Evolution and Creationism side-by-side to ensure neutrality.
Now, I doubt this bill will make it very far, but you never know. If it does, I guarantee you the first application of it will be a challenge to the way evolution is taught within the state. “Teach the controversy” has morphed into “Teach with neutrality.” The complaint will be that, by teaching the best science available, that those Atheistic Scientists are doing nothing more than shoving their Religion down everyone’s throat.
An interesting sidenote is that (as in the recent case in California in which a teacher was sued by a Christian student for making disparaging remarks against Christianity), some conservatives seem to be abandoning their position that the Constitution “guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion). Now the tack is to admit that the Constitution intends neutrality, but now to paint anything implicitly secular as explicitly atheistic. So now that dastardly atheist teacher is pushing his religion in the classroom when he denigrates Christianity; now the biology textbooks are filled with Atheist Dogma that claims there is no God.
Finally, you’ll notice a reference to Section 59-29-230. That’s the existing law that allows for the teaching of “Old and New Testament era courses.” Unlike the biology classroom, there’s no danger whatsoever that teaching the Old and New Testament could possibly lead to a lack of neutrality vis-a-vis “religion or non-religion.” Oh, no no no…that would never happen.
Not to mention that in part 6, that should be the “principles” of atheism, not “principals.”
Dey doesn’t do a very gud job o’ teachin’ in teh skools, do dey?
I wanted to pull my hair out when I read this bill. Unfortunately, I live in South Carolina. As much as I love it here, the people I’m surrounded by make me want to scream, sometimes.
Somehow, I got lucky. Perhaps, through the luck of the draw, I got good science teachers because I learned evolution and never heard one word about creationism in school. But I’ve got a cousin in 7th grade at a public school who does not believe in evolution and attends a bible study class. How did it get this bad in the 20 years since I was in 7th grade?
By the way, that bible study class is a religious class but they go off school property to a church for it and the teacher isn’t paid by the state. I almost flipped out when he first told me about this class, before learning those facts.
Shawn,
Even if the bible study class is taught offsite and the teacher isn’t compensated by the state, does your cousin get credit for the class towards graduation? That would imply “support” by the school even if not paid by the school. That would still bother me.
Kevin, I agree completely. It would be nice if the public schools would just remain neutral and stay away from classes like this. But it probably isn’t illegal this way. It’s obviously a sneaky way to get religion in the school.
The major problem is that public schools aren’t neutral, the whole story isn’t being told. Investigate some scientific evidence that contradicts the standard models that are taught as facts. Carbon 14 equilibrium, using the standard model mathmatics shows the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Population growth, graves, plate techtonics, living dinosaur bones, and much much more. Archeopteryx is a bird and not a transitional species, the Miller Experiment has been proven scientifically false, Haekel’s drawings misrepresent embryology, and the Cambrian Explosion contradicts evolution as does the fossil record.
Knowing the facts, and not just the spoon fed details offered by public schools shows that evolution doesn’t work, and the vast majority of the scientific evidence for an old earth is false.
What is being taught is an atheist agenda, if you actually read the 1st Amendment or if you know where the “separation of church and state” statement comes from and you have read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist’s Association, then you would know that the statement was about establishing a government doctrine. Government and Christianity were intended to be mixed.