ADVERTISEMENT

Oklahoma bill would fire teachers for offending Christian morals by teaching biology, allows parents to sue teachers

These “individuals can sue” thing is an absolute train wreck of a dumpster fire. This clearly seems like a good idea to some, but eventually it’s going to blow up in a big way.
Just as soon as California or New York pass a law allowing people to sue gun manufacturers or sellers, or something else that Righties care about.
 
Oklahoma Sen. Rob Standridge (R) has introduced legislation that would allow parents to sue any public school educators who teach anything "in opposition to closely held religious beliefs of students." Standridge has also introduced a bill that would give individual parents the power to demand the removal of any bookfrom school shelves that they believe contains LGBTQ content.

The bill would allow parents to sue teachers for $10,000 "per incident, per individual." The fine would need to be paid by the teacher "from personal resources" and the educator cannot "receive any assistance from individuals or groups." If the teacher is unable to pay and receives assistance, they will be fired immediately and unable to teach in the state for five years.

"A biology teacher who explains evolution could be ratted out by a Creationist who's failing science class. A health teacher who educates students about different forms of birth control won't be in that classroom for very long if an abstinence-promoting teenager is on the roster," journalist Hemant Mehta explained.

"A history teacher who correctly describes the Founding Fathers as a mix of religious and non-religious individuals could be a target of conservative evangelicals who believe Christian pseudo-historian David Barton's lies. An English teacher who wants to challenge kids with controversial thought-provoking literature would be forced to stick to only the blandest books."
This is even better than The Handmaid's Tale.
 
The party of smaller government and less litigation folks.

And the bill sponsor is a pharmacist. WTAF?

Majority Whip. So not a bottom feeder in the party.
 
These “individuals can sue” thing is an absolute train wreck of a dumpster fire. This clearly seems like a good idea to some, but eventually it’s going to blow up in a big way.
I think the worst part of these laws is the fact that you don’t have to have standing or prove damages. If I live in Texas and I get wind that my neighbor went out of state for an abortion, I can sue and I can win. Why should I win? I should have no standing in that case and certainly couldn’t prove damages.
 
So if it's your closely held religious belief that your children should not learn anything at all . . . that means that the teachers can't even like teach them to read or do basic arithmetic?

People like this really are holding us back. There is simply no two ways around it.

And if your faith isn't strong enough to be tested by facts, then it's very weak indeed.
 
I thought the lefts mantra in these cases was: "if you've got nothing to hide then why do you care if they search/watch/investigate?"
 
You just have to be a troll. Have to be. You can't be that much of a dumbass. Well, maybe you can.
Holding dissenting opinions does not make one a "troll". It does seem to cause consternation though, when I question or reject the approved narrative. Maybe some people will start to question their beliefs but I fear the cognitive dissonance won't let them.
 
Holding dissenting opinions does not make one a "troll". It does seem to cause consternation though, when I question or reject the approved narrative. Maybe some people will start to question their beliefs but I fear the cognitive dissonance won't let them.
Just pray to your guy in the sky.
 
The problem is you can't argue or discuss with them cause they only speak in wrong

Normal people: the sky is blue
Them: ARRRRRG ITS ORANGE AND ITS THE LIEBRAL MEDIA THAT TELLS YOU THAT AND STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!!!!!!

like how do you counter that?
The worst part is when you give up on debating "The sky is blue" they believe they won an argument, which only encourages their shit behavior.
 
Holding dissenting opinions does not make one a "troll". It does seem to cause consternation though, when I question or reject the approved narrative. Maybe some people will start to question their beliefs but I fear the cognitive dissonance won't let them.
So, do you support the bill being proposed in Oklahoma? If so, why? If not, why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Report back when it’s law and upheld by the US Supreme Court. Then we can talk. In the meantime, try to stay calm.
Do you take a similar stance to idiot bills and statements proposed by politicians on the left? Do you take a “stay calm” approach? Or do you and all the other righties on here express outrage?
 
The Taliban is what guys like that aspire to.
The apt question is, if the first amendment didn’t exist, would Republicans agree to a constitutional amendment that limited the ability of the states or federal government in establishing an “official” religion? And they answer is of course they wouldn’t. Deep South states would rush to establish a state sponsored theocracy. Which of course accurately describes the taliban.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT