Excluding both religion and non-religion from South Carolina school classrooms

A new bill has been proposed for the southern end of Carolina, and it's ... well, odd. It seems to be a mixture of good ideas and warped illogic. Full text below.

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."

Seeing as reading this sort of droning legal mumbo-jumbo is probably giving you all nosebleeds by now, it basically simplifies into the following points:

• That the government will neither promote nor denigrate religion, nor will it advise religion over non-religion (such as atheism);

• That atheism, being a school of thought, is therefore basically a religion, and is considered as such in light of the First Amendment;

• That school curriculum shall be reviewed, and that no instances where either religion or non-religion are promoted are to be allowed in classrooms; and

• That Christian Bible classes are to be exempt from governmental intervention as they're courses specifically for learning about the Christian Bible.

The basis of the bill, which is that the government is to remain neutral on religion (and non-religion) and that neither shall be enforced in school classrooms, is of course perfectly acceptable – it's exactly what we're hoping for. The bill does however get muddied-up a bit, particularly when it describes atheism (aka. the specific rejection of deities and corresponding religions) as a religion itself. Is it so hard to understand that religions aren't just sets of beliefs; that they require doctrine, someone to guide and act as a spiritual leader, and one or more deities to worship? Atheism is explicitly the rejection of all that hoowah. It's simply a belief that there is no God(s). There are no atheist temples or churches, no rituals or prayers or sermons, nothing to worship and no-one to bow down to. Categorizing it as a religion simply because it is a school of thought on the (in)existence of God is just ignorant.

Overall, I do agree with this bill. It doesn't try to introduce religion or creationism in public classrooms (not that I can tell at least, in my limited capacity of not being a legal expert or analyst), and actually expressedly forbids the government from taking part in either pushing religion or removing it, which can only be good.

Biggest surprise yet: it's a bill being introduced by a Republican insurance agent. A Republican who isn't trying to screw up education by flooding kids' minds with piousness and dogma and superstitious silliness ... Now that's something you don't see every day.

(via Pharyngula)