What's Going on in Ohio?

Dateline: April 27, 1998

I don't know what's going on in the Buckeye State - maybe it's the water - but some there seem to have caught a religious fervor and are hell-bent on trampling the rights of others.

The most recent and perhaps most noxious example of religious arrogance is the recent decision of the Lake Local School Board to approve a new educational plan which includes teaching a belief in God and the importance of religion. One board member practically gushed with enthusiasm, describing the plan as "...the most positive thing I've encountered" after 13 years on the board and the board president declared that this decision would put Lake "...on the verge of becoming one of the premier school districts in the State of Ohio..." In my opinion, that doesn't speak well either for the history of the district or the quality of the other Ohio districts.

Don't any of these people have the slightest inkling that teaching a belief in God is a clear and obvious violation of state/church separation? What ever gave them the idea that public schools have any business teaching religion?

But maybe they have been emboldened by all the other things going on in Ohio. Recently a bill which would require teachers in public schools to teach "scientific evidence against evolution" (as if such a thing existed) was narrowly defeated in the Ohio state legislature.

Ohio's problems don't stop there. The City of Dayton has revealed plans to turn over the administration of some public schools (Edison Elementary district) to the "Concerned Christian Men." So, a religious group will be running public schools. Education and learning could once again sacrificed to the demands of religion.

Even more amazing is that the state motto, "...with God all things are possible" is clearly religious in nature and is taken directly from the Bible: Matthew 19:23-26. The ACLU has protested this motto, pointing out that it not only supports religion over non-religion, but in fact promotes the religious doctrine of divine intervention over the doctrine of a disinterested God who helps those who help themselves. Who could imagine that such a motto is acceptable?

Well, the Columbus Dispatch would, that's who. In an editorial on the motto, the reader is told that "A state motto, by definition, is purely symbolic." Well, duh. A swastika is also symbolic, but somehow I doubt that many people would support having it put on the state seal. Why? Because it reflects a particular ideology offensive to many people. Nevermind the fact that the separation of state and church doesn't suddenly stop have validity with symbols! The editorial continues: "Is it too much to ask for Ohio to have a mildly inspiring recognition of God's influence over society?" Allow me to answer that:

YES!

Of course it is too much to ask - the state has absolutely no business promoting any one religion over others, much less religion in general over non-religion. It simply isn't appropriate state business. If the special recognition of some god is not a violation of state/church separation, what is? Nothing. Nothing at all. Ohio residents don't need to pay for their state to promote someone else's religion, and they don't need their government telling them, implicitly, that they are somehow less worthy because they don't accept they same religion as the state. It is too much to ask for Ohio to recognize anything about any god because in doing so, the State of Ohio will be telling its citizens that, in matter of religion, some are considered by the state to be right and others wrong. How can an editor have the gall to assert that the state should do such a thing?

The City of Stow, Ohio, possibly taking a cue from the state government, has restored religious symbols to its town seal: a Christian Cross and a Bible. Evidently, people in Stow who do not revere either the Cross or the Bible simply don't count for much. The city had earlier removed them, but a referendum of voters forced their return. Well, I hope that the supporters of the referendum have deep pockets, because they are getting sued in court to have those symbols removed. The ability of some people to put their personal religious prejudices ahead of the basic civil rights of other citizens never ceases to amaze me. Are people really so afraid that their religion isn't true that they have to turn to the state - Big Brother - for validation and support?

As I indicated, I really don't understand what is going on in Ohio, but I truly hope that they come to their senses before matters go too far. Traditionally such arrogant religious excesses have been the province of the Deep South, but Southerners certainly don't have a monopoly on this any more. Perhaps what is needed is more education of the populace. My own goal is to show people that rational alternatives to religion are available, thus hopefully helping them move beyond it.