Gov. Bobby Jindal, the Republican of Louisiana, has recently resurfaced in the national political realm, grasping at straws to stay relevant. Some speculate it’s a ploy for a potential presidential or vice-presidential run. Whatever the reason, he has presented some of his ideological agenda already. 

 

After Jindal was first elected governor in 2007, one of the first pieces of legislation he signed was the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. This law allowed teachers to present supplemental material that was hypercritical of commonly accepted scientific findings behind evolution and climate change. 

 

The law’s proponents argued that it created an environment that opened scientific theory to debate and encouraged critical thinking. However, Zack Kopplin, one of

this law’s biggest opponents, argues that it has become a backdoor route to teaching creationism. 

 

By signing the Science Education Act into law in 2008, Jindal endorsed many proponents of the law, who have explicitly stated that material on intelligent design would be high on the list of supplemental materials teachers could present to their students. 

 

However, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court decided that teaching creationism violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which says that the government cannot pass legislation that promotes a specific religion. Furthermore, to be clear, the National Academy of Sciences has already said intelligent

design is not science because it is “not testable by the methods of science.” 

 

Given the clear separation between church and state that we have in our constitution, this Louisiana law is inexcusable. Furthermore, open discussions about scientific theories should be done through legitimate scientific discussions, not through promotion of individual religious beliefs. 

 

More recently, Jindal’s religious perspective on gay marriage emerged in a New York Times opinion piece, wherein he argued that he is “holding firm against gay marriage” and that he supported the religious freedom laws in Indiana. 

 

This was followed up by the following hypocritical rhetoric, “A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us.” 

 

If indeed Jindal supported a diverse society that tolerates disagreement, his religious views wouldn’t be the center of his political ideologies. 

 

Unfortunately, his stance isn’t a rarity among Republican Party candidates for the upcoming 2016 election. 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas recently submitted an amendment to the Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage. Many others, like Rick Santorum, have been on record saying that climate change is a sham and that they just don’t believe in evolution. 

 

I don’t know whom I’ll be voting for in the next elections, but I know whom I won’t be voting for. 

 

I won’t vote for people who don’t believe in science or people who don’t believe in tolerance and acceptance. You know who they are.