Oklahoma: Saving us from ourselves

I could write up this whole elegant diatribe on blah blah blah, but I’m tired and plagiarism is much easier and faster.

So without further ado, I give you this summary and select comments from a story posted on Slashdot:

“Notable evolutionary biologist, author, and speaker Richard Dawkins was recently invited to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma as part of the school’s celebration of Charles Darwin. However, Oklahoma lawmakers are working to silence Dawkins with the passage of House Bill 1015 (RTF), which reads in part: ‘… the University of Oklahoma … has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion,” and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma …'”
Pending legal action, Dawkins is set to speak tonight at 7 pm. (Luckily, we no longer live in the era of Bertrand Russell’s court-ordered dismissal on moral grounds from the College of the City of New York.)
And reader thms sends word of the Vatican’s Darwin conference (program):

“The conference, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of Species,” has been criticized by advocates of Creationism or Intelligent Design for not inviting them. The Muslim creationist Harun Yahya, most famous for his Atlas of Creation, also complained about not being invited.”

And now, our comments:

Celebrating cultural diversity? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

No kidding. The resolution begins:

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry…

By paragraph THREE it is condemning Dawkins for, and I am not making this up:

views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma

I did. Whether they are simply advocating the squashing of Dawkins’ freedom of speech or are actually squashing, if the University tells Dawkins’ to pack it in, the end result is the same.

Let’s also not forget that First Amendment also includes the freedom to practice a religion of one’s choosing. This also includes the right to practice no religion at all. IOW, Dawkins’ has a Constitutional right to be an atheist and to speak about his own beliefs (or non-beliefs) as an atheist.

I’m not an atheist myself, but I will defend the rights of atheists to believe (or not believe) what they choose.

The full resolution asked for Dawkins invitation be rescinded. Moreover, Note that they are unhappy because Dawkins views are “offensive”. Furthermore, this is the watered down resolution. The original draft included language attacking the the university’s “one-sided indoctrination of an unproven and unpopular theory” among other fun statements. See http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/03/the_first_draft_of_ok_legislat.php [scienceblogs.com] To me the most disturbing thing is the repeated emphasis in both the original draft and the passed version on the lack of popular support for evolution. These people really don’t understand how either science or government should work.