Our Chapter President Comments on OKC City Council Cadidates

Asking the congregation to pray for political campaigns should cost the
church its tax-exempt status, said Mike Fuller, president of the Oklahoma
City chapter of the Americans for Separation of Church and State.

"That's a violation in my opinion of the prohibition on politicking by a
tax-exempt organization," he said. "That strikes me as blatant politicking."

Fuller said the candidates have a right to espouse religious beliefs, but
should be cautious once they enter office.

"We have no quarrel with people professing religion during campaigns," he
said. "I wouldn't want to prevent them from doing that. Once they get into
office and they start pushing for policies based on religion that affect the
public, then that's an encroachment on church-state separation, and we do
want to get involved in trying to prevent that from happening."

http://www.newsok.com/activities-of-council-candidates-church-draw-criticism/article/3544301

Activities of council candidates' church draw criticism
Council candidates' church, its activities criticized. Political commentary,
children's training on weapons cause some to believe radical views will
influence council decisions.

By Michael Baker and John Estus
Published: February 27, 2011

Two Oklahoma City Council candidates attend a church observers have
criticized for flying the Confederate flag, making political commentary from
the pulpit and training children to use automatic weapons at a church camp.

Windsor Hills Baptist Church's activities have been described as radical by
critics who fear it could influence city council decisions if its members
are elected Tuesday.

The church had nothing to do with members Adrian Van Manen and Cliff Hearron
deciding to run for city council, nor will the church force its religion on
Oklahoma City, the two candidates said.

"Some of the people that I've known down there for the last 19 years are
helping me in the campaign, but I'm keeping a pretty strict wall of
separation between me and the church, not that that's required by law,"
Hearron said.

"My decision to run was a personal decision, and it has nothing to do with
the church," Van Manen said.

complete at:

http://www.newsok.com/activities-of-council-candidates-church-draw-criticism/article/3544301

Debate Video now available

Prescott / Kern Debate from Damion Reinhardt on Vimeo.

The full video of the February 24th Debate sponsored by the OKC chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is now available at
http://vimeo.com/20413733

Thanks, Damion, for getting this together for our Oklahoma chapter of AU. I want readers to know they are welcome to share this link far and wide regardless of your religious viewpoint. We at www.OKAU.org went to great lengths to keep this debate as civil and balanced as possible, giving every opportunity for each side to present their strongest arguments and documentary evidence. I think we succeeded with a packed house of at least 170 people.

Don't be daunted by the length of the debate. Our moderators and timekeeper were very focused on doing a good job to keeping things moving.

On another fork in the road of civil liberties let me add that the Oklahoma legislature will be considering a resolution numbered SJR 23 that if passed in both Houses would place on the Oklahoma November, 2012 ballot a state question that would remove from the Oklahoma constitution Article 2, sec 5 the prohibition of any tax money being used or given to any religious person or establishment whatsoever.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/oklahoma/II-5.html

This undoubtedly would pass with the voters of Oklahoma and turn the civil liberty of freedom of and from religion as outlined in the Federal First Amendment into a raffle prize awarded to the majority. Civil liberties are inherent as a birthright and can not be subject to majority whim or ignorance.

This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee The text of SJR 23 is here:

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 53rd Legislature (2011)
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 23 By: Anderson

AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution directing the Secretary of State to refer to the people for their approval or rejection the repeal of Section 5 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution, which relates to use of public money or property for sectarian purposes; providing ballot title; and directing filing.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 53RD OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

SECTION 1. The Secretary of State shall refer to the people for their approval or rejection, as and in the manner provided by law, the repeal of Section 5 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution which prohibits the use of public money or property for sectarian purposes.

SECTION 2. The Ballot Title for the proposed Constitutional amendment as set forth in SECTION 1 of this resolution shall be in the following form:

BALLOT TITLE

Legislative Referendum No. ____ State Question No. ____

THE GIST OF THE PROPOSITION IS AS FOLLOWS:

This measure would amend Article II of the State Constitution. It would repeal Section 5 of this article. This section prohibits the use of public money or property for certain purposes. This use is banned for sectarian purposes.

SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?

FOR THE PROPOSAL — YES _____________

AGAINST THE PROPOSAL — NO _____________

SECTION 3. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall, immediately after the passage of this resolution, prepare and file one copy thereof, including the Ballot Title set forth in SECTION 2 hereof, with the Secretary of State and one copy with the Attorney General.

53-1-121 CD 2/26/2011 8:10:36 PM

Prescott / Kern Debate Recap

Thanks to everyone who attended last night's debate and especially those who worked so hard to make it happen, most especially Drs. Kern and Prescott. The lo-fi abridged audio file is available here. Full video will be posted sometime next week. The issue under debate was whether the U.S. Constitution founded a Christian Nation.

After listening to the debate, a few questions naturally spring to mind. Perhaps most saliently, one must ask what exactly are these uniquely Christian principles upon which Dr. Kern rested so many of his arguments? Are there any moral principles which one finds in the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth which are not to be found elsewhere in pre-Christian religions (e.g. Animism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Dionysianism, etc.)? If so, where are these uniquely Christian principles to be found in the U.S. Constitution?

Secondly, why should the letters or speeches of individual founders (e.g. Patrick Henry or Gouverneur Morris) be considered final and authoritative as to the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, especially when said founders were expressing themselves on matters unrelated thereto? If modern church-state integrationists do not consider it acceptable to take Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor to be authoritative because it was written in a private letter to a Baptist church, why should Morris' unpublished draft of a Constitution for France carry more weight? At least it may be said of Jefferson that he was reflecting upon the potential of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By contrast, Morris was proposing a wholly new set of rules for a strikingly different cultural context, even as (back across the pond) the original thirteen States were busily discussing and ratifying the First Amendment.

Finally, it should be noted that Dr. Kern brings up a completely new topic when he moves on from the Constitution and its drafters to the late 20th century, attempting to draw a causal connection between secularism and some of the more unfortunate consequences of the sexual revolution. This is a fascinating topic in and of itself, and while it is irrelevant to the debate last night, might well merit further inquiry in another forum.

---

For further reading:

• Chris Rodda - History of the Northwest Ordinance


• Patrick Henry quotes and misquotes (note what he never said)


• Gouverneur Morris quote in context (proposed French Constitution)

Kern Just Can't Keep Herself from Distortion and Deception

HB 1551 by Kern – Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act
Distortion and Deception Revisited

The wording of HB 1551 is virtually identical to SB 320 introduced by Brogdon in 2009 (failed in Education Committee). Identical bills, apparently written by the creationist Discovery Institute, have been introduced in several other states over the last several years. They are cleverly worded to sound as if not promoting religious views in order to skirt the first amendment establishment clause and recent court rulings. However, the religious motivations of Rep. Kern (and the Discovery Institute) are abundantly clear. The terms “academic freedom”, “strengths and weaknesses”, and “scientific information” are well-known euphemisms used in order to cast doubt on established science and introduce religious counter-arguments in science classrooms.

The bill states:
2A. . . . teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest. There isn't one. Evolution as a process is supported by an enormous and continually growing body of evidence. Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin's time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found. The fact that evolution has occurred is accepted by virtually all scientists around the world and is as well established as the fact that the Earth is round. The controversies are purely religious and political. The reason some teachers may be unsure of how to teach evolution, etc., is due to anti-science interference from from some parents and members of the community.

2B. . . . assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

There really are no scientific “weaknesses”. If one looks to the sources of these alleged weaknesses, we find they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like the implications of evolution. One may not like the implications of atomic weapons but that does not mean that there is some controversy over the physics or that one may simply reject the science as flawed. Instead of teaching science, this approach teaches our children that it is acceptable to simply ignore the parts of science they don't happen to like.

2C. . . . shall not prohibit any teacher in a school district in this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.

What weaknesses should teachers teach? The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have not found any legitimate scientific weaknesses to evolution but we expect high school teachers to fabricate and discuss so-called weaknesses in class? This provides an opening for the introduction of supplementary creationist intelligent design materials into the classroom. This is now being attempted in Texas where curriculum standards are based on wording similar to this and other anti-evolution bills.

2D. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.
This is vague. It would seem to allow any position to count on assignments or exams.

2E. . . . shall only protect the teaching of scientific information,
The term scientific information is not defined here. Creation “scientists” and intelligent design proponents claim to be doing science – they are not but their propaganda might be interpreted to be scientific information by some teachers or school administrators.

HB 1551 makes the completely baseless association between academic freedom and freedom to teach pseudoscientific nonsense in science classes. Forcing teachers to present the “strengths and weaknesses” will force them to pretend that we know less than we really do about the natural world and to present ideas based in one specific religion as if they were science. The issue is not about fairness or free inquiry; it is about science vs. nonscience. With academic freedom comes academic responsibility; that is, to teach only science in science classes. This bill does not promote academic freedom, rather academic misconduct.

Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education –
http://www.oklascience.org/

Here is contact information for the members of the House committee that will hear this bill.

------------------------------

Since time is short, we are asking you to also send letters to the
Republican members of the House Common Ed Committee, except for Chair
Coody and Sally Kern.


The messages should be in your own words, short, and emphasize the
main points - harm to science education, harm to economy, likely
unconstitutional and already killed two years ago in Senate.

Here is the contact info:

GOPers

Gus Blackwell
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 305-A
557-7384 gusblackwell@okhouse.gov

Dennis Casey
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 300B
557-7344 dennis.casey@okhouse.gov

Doug Cox
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 410
557-7415 dougcox@okhouse.gov

Corey Holland
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 537
557-7405 corey.holland@okhouse.gov

Fred Jordan
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 333
557-7331 fred.jordan@okhouse.gov

Jason Nelson
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 301
557-7335 jason.nelson@okhouse.gov

Jadine Nollan
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 320
557-7390 jadine.nollan@okhouse.gov

Pat Ownbey
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 301
557-7326 pat.ownbey@okhouse.gov

Dustin Roberts
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 319
557-7366 dustin.roberts@okhouse.gov

Demos

Jabar Shumate, Vice Chair
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 510
557-7406
jabarshumate@okhouse.gov

Ed Cannaday
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 539-B
557-7375
ed.cannaday@okhouse.gov

Donnie Condit
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 500A
557-7376
donnie.condit@okhouse.gov

Jeannie McDaniel
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 508
557-7334
jeanniemcdaniel@okhouse.gov

Emily Virgin
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 539-B
557-7323
emily.virgin@okhouse.gov

--
Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education
P.O. BOX 721454
NORMAN, OK 73070
oklascience@gmail.com
http://www.oklascience.org/

OKC Chapter in the News

Discussion of Legislative Preview in January, 2011

Deemed a success

55 in attendance, Oklahoman story by McNutt
Read more:
http://newsok.com/conservative-ideological-bills-concern-group/article/3536708#ixzz1DKG8KCEA

Carla Hinton mention of event in Oklahoman
http://newsok.com/capitol-events-mix-faith-and-government/article/3536285

Evolution alternatives?

OKC's chapter of Americans United for Separation & State is helping support our federal First Amendment right to freedom of religion and to maintain the Oklahoma Constitution's Article 2, section 5 restriction from allowing tax money to be used for religious purposes.

http://bit.ly/goeSeI

Our chapter president, Mike Fuller, was recently quoted for an Oklahoma Gazette story (linked below) on the attempt by some legislators to equate religious creationism with scientific evolution.

http://okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10678-evolution-alternatives.html

clip -- According to Mike Fuller, president of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, there is no valid criticism of the theory of evolution as a comprehensive theory, only with aspects of it. “There is no scientifically credible theory that competes with evolution,” said Fuller, a former junior high science teacher. “This is yet another of the continuing efforts to bring religion, in the form of intelligent design or creationism, into science classes. There simply is no controversy about the truth of evolution in science fields.”

OKAU Legislative Preview --- Conservative ideological bills concern group

Conservative ideological bills concern group
Measures could harm Oklahoma's economic efforts and violate state and federal constitutional prohibitions against mixing religious doctrine with secular government, say members of the Oklahoma City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Read more: http://newsok.com/conservative-ideological-bills-concern-group/article/3536708#ixzz1DKG8KCEA

AU Applauds Decision Striking Down Ohio Judge’s Ten Commandments Display

AU Applauds Decision Striking Down Ohio Judge’s Ten Commandments Display

Courts Should Provide Equal Justice For All, Not Promote Religious Law, Says AU’s Lynn

February 2, 2011

A federal appeals court made the right call in requiring a state judge in Ohio to remove a Ten Commandments display from his courtroom, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that James DeWeese, a judge of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, ran afoul of the Constitution when he put up a display entitled “Philosophies of Law in Conflict” that contrasted the “Moral Absolutes” of the Ten Commandments with the “Moral Relatives” of humanism.

“Judge DeWeese was improperly promoting his personal religious beliefs in his courtroom, and I’m glad the appeals court put a stop to it,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.

Added Lynn, “Our courts are supposed to provide equal justice for all, not promote religious law. Judges should never send the message that some religious traditions have a preferred place in the courtroom.”

The case goes back to 2000, when DeWeese hung a poster of the Ten Commandments opposite a poster of the Bill of Rights, presenting each as “the rule of law.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sued and won. In response, DeWeese created the new display. The ACLU sued over that as well.

Ruling in American Civil Liberties Union v. James DeWeese, the appeals court determined that DeWeese sought to endorse religion through his actions.

“[T]he poster in this case is not merely a display of the Ten Commandments in Defendant’s courtroom,” wrote Judge Eric L. Clay for the unanimous three-judge panel. “It sets forth overt religious messages and religious endorsements. It is a display of the Ten Commandments editorialized by Defendant, a judge in an Ohio state court, exhorting a return to ‘moral absolutes’ which Defendant himself defines as the principles of the ‘God of the Bible.’ The poster is an explicit endorsement of religion by Defendant….”

DeWeese was represented in court by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice.

Last year, Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the appeals court to stop DeWeese from promoting religion in his courtroom. (The brief was joined by The Interfaith Alliance, the Anti-Defamation League, the Hindu American Foundation and the Union for Reform Judaism.)

In addition, Americans United pointed out on its website that DeWeese has been affiliated with Christian Reconstructionism, the most extreme manifestation of the Religious Right. Reconstructionists believe in imposing “biblical law” on America based on the legal code of the Old Testament.


Read the full press release at http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2011/02/au-applauds-decision-striking.html

You can read the Court's opinion here:
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2011/02/ohio-10c-appeals-court-ruling.pdf

DEBATE: US Constitution neither established nor advocates for a Christian nation

THE OKLAHOMA CHAPTER OF
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 - 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm
Oklahoma City Community College - 7777 S. May, OKC
Parking Area “D” - Entrance “CU1” - Rooms CU2,CU3

FREE PUBLIC DEBATE

“Resolved, the United States Constitution neither established
nor advocates for a Christian nation.”

Dr. Bruce Prescott (Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, Exec. Dir.) will argue the AFFIRMATIVE ( http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/ )

Dr. Steve Kern (Southern Baptist, pastor) will argue the NEGATIVE
http://www.olivetbaptistokc.com/


●Audience members will have the opportunity to express
with which position they tend to agree.

●A brief time of “Questions and Answers”
from the audience will be scheduled.

●For more information contact Jim Huff - jah30@cox.net
or Mike Fuller - mf12@sbcglobal.net or James Nimmo, 405-843-3651

Too Christian or Not? To be or Not to be --Two Events

And I apologize to Shakespeare and his reading fans

=======================

What: 2011 OK Legislative Bill Preview - Religious vs. Civil Use of Tax Payer Money

When: Saturday, January 29, 2011, 9:30am to 11:30am

Where: OK State Senate Chamber, Capitol Building, 2100 N. Lincoln, OKC, OK

Who: OKC Chapter of Americans United for Church & State and the public!

Americans United for Separation of Church & State,
Oklahoma City Chapter, Announces 2nd Annual Legislative Preview

(Oklahoma City) The Oklahoma City Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church & State will hold its second annual Oklahoma Legislative Preview on Saturday, January 29, 2011 in the State Senate Chamber, Oklahoma Capitol Building, located in Oklahoma City.

Convening at 9:30 am, this event previews bills submitted by both Houses of the Oklahoma Legislature that involve the use of public tax money to advance religious viewpoints that could violate the state and federal Constitutional prohibitions against mixing religious doctrine with secular government. The event will conclude at 11:30 am.

The language and expenditures of these bills will be reviewed and discussed in an open meeting with all interested citizens invited to participate with questions and comments.


Sponsors of the selected bills will be invited to speak briefly about each topic with questions from the audience encouraged.


Please note that access to the Senate Chamber will be through the west security entrance of the State Capitol. Ample free parking and handicapped facilities are available.


Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.

For more information about the Oklahoma City Chapter of Americans for Separation of Church and State please visit http://www.au.org or contact Mike Fuller at 405-570-3244, Nick Singer at 405-416-3126 or James Nimmo at 405-843-3651.


2) THE OKLAHOMA CHAPTER OF
AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2011 - 7:00 pm
Oklahoma City Community College - 7777 S. May, OKC
Parking Area “D” - Entrance “CU1” - Rooms CU2,CU3

FREE PUBLIC DEBATE

“Resolved, the United States Constitution neither established
nor advocates for a Christian nation.”

Dr. Bruce Prescott (Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, ExD) will argue the AFFIRMATIVE
Dr. Steve Kern (Southern Baptist, pastor) will argue the NEGATIVE

●Participants will have the opportunity to express
with which position they tend to agree.

●A brief time of “Questions and Answers”
from the audience will be scheduled.

●For more information contact Jim Huff - jah30@cox.net
or Mike Fuller - mf12@sbcglobal.net