Last week we wrote about Kasich’s latest appointee to the Ohio School Board, Cathye Smith Flory, who believes all kids in public schools should be taught about creationism.

Flory joins existing extremist school board member Debe Terhar, who compared Obama to Hitler on her Facebook page, and Mark Smith, the school board member and president of Ohio Christian University who claimed Ohio-born Novelist Toni Morrison had a “socialist-communist agenda.”

MarkSmith5Not to be outdone by the new member’s creationist agenda, Smith stepped up his game last week, given an impassioned speech at Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom coalition conference.  

In his remarks, Smith promoted “biblical truth” and, in not-so-subtle racist tones, railed against equality:

If you begin to study what you’re being fed by the media and by the president that is in our office today, you would understand that this word equality and liberty are diametrically opposed.”

Smith also attacked educators for not promoting his version of “biblical truth”:

“It’s no secret that our educational system is full of teachers and professors who desire to obfuscate truth, and these individuals are effectively [deconstructing] our nation”

And…. what over-the-top religious rant would be complete without attacking the LGBT community?   Here’s what Smith said on that topic:

I like traditional marriage. I’m for traditional marriage. Let’s embrace traditional marriage.”

Smith went on to urge the audience to get involved with their local and state school boards and departments of education.

You can listen to Smith’s full remarks here (ht Right Wing Watch for the original article and the audio.)

  • dmoore2222

    Well just look at him, the quintessential middle-aged, white guy who feels threatened by any kind of change, especially one that includes anyone who doesn’t look like him.

  • rayy

    I’m for “traditional marriage” too, if that’s your bag. Thing is, it doesn’t preclude so-called “non-traditional” marriage in any way. The two are not mutually exclusive. Simple logic.

  • Think.

    How unfortunate that Flory, Terhar, and Smith are charged with making sure that “all Ohio students graduate from the PK-12 education system with the knowledge, skills and behaviors necessary to successfully continue their education and/or be workforce ready and successfully participate in the global economy as productive citizens.”
    Can state school board members such as these ever put their extreme beliefs aside to successfully serve Ohio families?

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Maybe I missed it, but where did this guy go on a “racist” rant? And since when is supporting traditional marriage “homophobic”? And what is so wrong with teaching creationism alongside evolution? Is not the goal of education to give the students a well rounded experience so that when they are confronted with such controversial issues they will be more prepared to deal with those issues? It seems to me if we teach the students all of one thing or the other, their world view will be, at best, lopsided. With a misleading title, this is SLOPPY journalism at its finest.

  • Pat

    I’m a socially left-leaning/moderate Republican. I like to think I am fairly level-headed person. Got to be honest, the author’s article is nothing more than making animals out of the clouds; i.e., imagining things.

  • Bill Freidline

    I am with you with the “racist” comment, although I am willing to bet that if we were to follow this guy around a while, certain elements of racism would likely surface.

    Secondly, creationism has zero place in a science classroom. It can be taught in a comparative religion class. Then we can put it in its proper context! All Earth religions have similar beginning stories, redemption stories, virgin birth stories and end-of-the-world stories that predate Christianity by thousands of years. This doesn’t make them science! Creationism requires the rejection of open scientific inquiry and method and relies upon layers of suppositions.

    Men like this are dangerous because they are buffet-style Christians. They tout ideas they like, and that sound good to them and their ilk, and reject those they don’t like, even if it’s straight out of their Bibles. So if he is going to claim holy warrant, then he needs to follow his book!

    Romans 13: 1-7 says all Earthly authority is established by God, and that to rebel against such authority is to rebel against God.

    Now, let’s see the Tea Party members who call themselves Christians explain their way out of that one!

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Gee, I wonder what they taught in the classroom BEFORE the THEORY of evolution came around. You should check that out. Further, some of our greatest scientific thinkers have been creationists. Isaac Newton for one. Remember that guy? He’s pretty important.

  • love gets you drunk

    Basically, your opinions can be completely disregarded because you are too ignorant to know what “theory” means in a scientific concept (everything is theory. gravity is a theory. go ahead and jump off a bridge if you’re going to deny evolution based on the fact it is a “theory”. please.) and the fact you think Isaac Newton, who was born in the 1600’s, is a credible reliable source when it comes to the origin of species on this planet. Newton was born 200 years before Darwin.

    Teach creationism in class. That’s fine. Teach all the creation myths. They are important to know and understand. As far as teaching the controversy, there’s only a controversy in the minds of delusional people. Even the Pope accepts evolution!

    Liberals bore you because you’re clueless, and lack both basic knowledge and an open mind.

  • love gets you drunk

    also “traditional marriage” is a euphemism for “no gay marriage” which is homophobic, and denies both liberty and equality in favor of appeasing bigots. Believing in traditional marriage is essentially saying “im a homophobic hypocrite who should be ignored by anyone with a brain”

  • love gets you drunk

    yay 🙂 great post

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Why should I take the word of a Pope? What is so important about him? Unfortunately this is why I have an issue with liberals, you are allowed to speak your mind as long as you agree with them. Once you cross the line and come up with an idea contrary to their belief system they begin to sling insults. When you wish to have an honest discussion, drop the name calling and we will talk.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Again, if you wish to have an honest discussion, drop the name calling and will we talk. Throwing out insults do nothing to persuade me, nor does it advance your political ideas.

  • love gets you drunk

    what honest discussion do you wish to have? Reason doesn’t work on you, as you demonstrate by dismissing evolution despite the mountains of evidence. Logic doesn’t work because you somehow think Isaac Newton is a logical reference point about creationism. Appeal to justice doesn’t work because you think the state should decide which two adults should have a right to have a legal bond recognized by the government who which two can’t. You can’t be persuaded by any of the tools in my toolbox.

  • love gets you drunk

    your name is a dismissive insult to an entire group of people, but you have the audacity to claim moral high ground in the respect department.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    I cannot be persuaded by the tools in your toolbox because they may need sharpened a bit. First, let’s deal with the term “theory” as defined by Webster’s: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” As far as I know, gravity is not conjectural, it is fact; therefore, instead of the “theory” of gravity which you propose, it is actually the law of gravity. As for using Isaac Newton as an example, I was merely pointing out that one does not have to believe in evolution in order to contribute to the scientific community. The term “tradition” as defined by Webster’s: “a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.” This is a proper view when viewing marriage from the perspective of history. From the beginning of our own history (American) and even predating it, the accepted view of marriage has been that of a man and a woman. Relatively speaking, it has been in recent history that society has began to redefine the term marriage. I believe I addressed your points. Furthermore, what is “homophobic” about traditional marriage?

  • love gets you drunk

    again, you’ve reconfirmed your total ignorance and lack of education in this post. My tools are sharp, but your rockheadedness is impenetrable. READ A BOOK

  • love gets you drunk

    other than the one you probably claim to read but haven’t actually read, of course.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Again with the insults. Can you not make a case and / or argument without using insults?

  • love gets you drunk

    your willful ignorance bores me. have a nice day.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    What book have I claimed to have read? I am currently reading the “Last of the Mohicans.” It is pretty good; however, I do not think it is going to really help me a whole lot in this discussion.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    I apologize if I was too logical for you.

  • love gets you drunk

    you literally don’t even know the definition of a scientific theory or how they work and you are trying to argue with me by looking up “theory” in the dictionary and just pasting the meaning. Why should I bother further? I shouldn’t, and I won’t.

    have a nice day.

  • love gets you drunk

    i apologize that you apparently have no idea of the concept of logic to think that you’re being logical.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    There again with the insults.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    Instead of coming up with a sound argument / case for your point of view, you defend yourself by essentially calling me stupid. That sounds reasonable to me.

  • Regarding the use of “racist” in the title, I was specifically referring to the rant about the president and equality. While you might make the argument that Smith was railing against marriage equality or gender equality instead of racial equality, it’s worth pointing out that President Obama is neither female nor gay. He is, however, African American.

  • Liberals Bore Me

    You are grasping at straws sir. I listened to his statement and he is referencing the President (as well as the media) concerning the information they are disseminating to the public. Again, how is that racist?

  • Jeffrey Marks

    Relatively speaking, for most of recorded history, marriage has been a way of passing inheritance and securing land and resources. Love had nothing to do with marriage until the 1800s.

    Wanting to codify “traditional” marriage into law means that you are in favor of denying one group of people their equal rights. That is discriminatory and by definition, homophobic.

    SCOTUS has ruled time and again that tradition never replaces the rule of law.

  • NCteacher78

    Before the theory of evolution was taught, people were taught you had to sacrifice a human being or a prized animal to appease God, that slavery was a part of life, and the Earth was at the center of the universe.

  • amyvav

    Wow. What lively discussion on this one! I’m compelled to jump in. I would like to comment on a direct quote from the article. “It’s no secret that our educational system is full of teachers and professors who desire to obfuscate truth, and these individuals are effectively [deconstructing] our nation”
    I would respond by saying that it is no secret that our state government, including the board of education, is full of individuals who do not value education nor educators.
    As one of those educators, it is not my job to guide my students in making personal choices regarding religion, lifestyle, or any other belief. It is, however, a solemn and vital responsibility to instill in them the knowledge to explore all theories of science, history, archaeology, etc., etc. It is an even greater responsibility to illustrate to them the need to understand and appreciate others’ points of view or beliefs, and to use that understanding in forming one’s own personal beliefs.
    I resent the implication that I am “deconstructing” our nation. I am assuring that we live in a nation where our future leaders will not blindly believe in any theory, but will base their religious, political, and social beliefs on study and consideration, rather than blind, unrelenting faith that they, and only they, have the right to determine what is correct or proper for others.

  • Think.

    Eloquently said!

  • William Hunter

    There is a lot wrong with “teaching creationism alongside evolution”. One is based solely on faith. The other, science and observable evidence. Also, once you open the door for a single religion to be taught in public schools, you open it for all religions. You create an open forum, so schools could be sued and forced to teach Islam, for example. I am pretty sure you don’t want that.

  • William Hunter

    Gravity is fact in this particular set of physical conditions, but it is possible that in some other part of the universe (in a black hole, for example) gravity is not a fact. Therefore, it is a theory. That is the basis of science. Everything is open to future analysis.

  • Bill Freidline

    Newton was not, in today’s sense, a creationist. He did not profess any belief in a young Earth. He simply hadn’t the tools to reveal more of the natural world to him. He was a scientist first and foremost, and I have no doubt that were he brought to the present and shown evidence of the manifold discoveries and repeatable observations that other men like him have made, he would, as true scientists do when confronted with new well-vetted information: accept it. And let’s not make him infallible! He once stated that God had set the heavenly bodies in motion and intervened every now and then to “set things back on their proper orbits”. He also believed there was something mystical about light. Just 200 years layer, LaPlace had shown that orbits self corrected due to advances in the field of celestial mechanics. Now, great scientists like Hawking, DeGrasse Tyson, Krausse and a raft of other luminaries in the field are non-believers and belief among scientists has become rare and fairly private. Draw your own conclusions, but the more science explains, the less we need the idea of a supernatural being to fill in the gaps…..

  • Bill Freidline

    And may I ask, what the hell is a traditional marriage anyway? 🙂 Funny how when the Bible thumpers got their feet held to the fire when numerous examples of very “untraditional” marriages in the Bible are pointed out, they suddenly switch to “traditional” as the keyword. Fine. To them I say “enjoy your traditional marriage! I will happily respect the way you carry on your traditional marriage right up to the point that you insist your traditions should be codified into laws that exclude others. After all, traditions are OPTIONAL. Rights are not.

  • Robert Hunter

    what is traditional marriage? One man and two wives and many concubines?

  • Retrofuturistic

    So— the Christian Tea Party hates smart people, science, gays, anyone who isn’t white, writers, teachers, artists, educated people, women, anyone who isn’t Christian, anyone who acknowledges the scientific basis for climate change, people who read thick books, unions, public service workers, poor people, Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, and children who have been born. Wow.

  • Suzanne Taylor Stephan

    Republicans are nuts

  • nowaRINO

    Teavangelicals don’t like other Christians who don’t toe the line.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!