( – promoted by DocHoc)
Since when did state legislatures take governance principles from Islamic and Communist models? Proposing resolutions to limit discourse based on opinions that might differ from their own seems to go contrary to how our system works. I was so outraged I sent a letter to the House leadership and my personal Representative. What follows is his callous response that ignores the main point of my letter.
“Mr Dawkin’s so called expertise can not be embellished, it is simply wrong. As a co-author or Representative Thomsen’s Resolution, I can only say I wish I had thought of it first.”
Representative Mike Reynolds
Re: Todd Thomsen and House Resolution 1014 & 1015
As a concerned member of the district in which the Honorable Mike Reynolds serves, I feel it is my own and my neighbors best interest to take the time to voice my extreme dismay concerning the actions of the Honorable Todd Thomsen. Introducing legislation, albeit for political grandstanding, symbolic gestures, or true intentions, that so tramples a basic principle on which this country bases its roots upon, shows an extreme mockery of the position he was elected to serve. Freedom of speech and the freedom of oratory discourse and the debate of conflicting points of view are such a virtue of our land and bedrock of the morals on which we were founded. The attempt to limit such debate through a political act balances unnervingly close to the complete trampling of many freedoms this country embraces and what has made us the envy of the world.
Richard Dawkin’s background and expertise need no embellishment to signify his importance as an influential individual in the field of science. Having the opportunity to have him in the state and present on anything would be such an honor and experience for anyone in attendance and do wonders to continue to build the academic excellence of our state’s institutes of higher education. Mr. Thomsen, through his actions, not only wishes to prevent such an opportunity for the state, he makes a mockery of the good people of this state. Just last year we had to suffer the national press and the indignity of the situation that the campaign comic of Brent Rinehart put us though, symbolizing us as a backward state. Now we have a member of our House’s majority leadership team attempt to stifle open debate and discourse at an institution of higher learning on the argument that, ” …whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.”
Mr. Thomsen’s own personal beliefs are based upon an institution on its founding were also contrary and offensive to the views of most citizens. This country was settled by many people whose views were contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens. There is a term for a government that limits the rights of its citizens and censors opinions contrary to the will of the majority and/or those in power. I never felt either extreme of our political system would ever attempt to set such limits on the behavior of its free citizens. Apparently I was mistaken and I am deeply embarrassed to be lumped into the category of an Oklahoman if these views and limits are what are perceived to be an official position of our legislature.
As leaders of the House’s parties, I feel it is the obligation appointed upon you to step in and takes the steps needed to correct this farce of an attempt of governance. Mr. Thomsen is in a position of leadership, and such positions require and demand better behavior, judgment, and personal accountability than has been shown on the part of Mr. Thomsen. Inaction on this matter would speak volumes, and would be no different than personal action taken on your behalf to limit the right of discourse in our society.