Joshua Jantz, the long-shot Republican candidate facing state Sen. Andrew Rice in the Senate 46 District race, is using religious rhetoric again in his campaign material.

As some of you may remember, Jantz ran against Rice in 2006. Rice, the Democratic nominee for the seat, which is in the heart of Oklahoma City, won 70 percent of the vote that year by the landslide margin of 7,342 to 3,217.

As part of his 2006 campaign, Jantz circulated campaign material, which thanked voters for praying “For God to place a hedge of thorns around the district, & every voter within, that no evil influence prevails, & that voters will know and believe the truth.” (Read the 2006 Okie Funk post about it here).

“A hedge of thorns”? Is this supposed to be a figurative, unseen hedge or a real hedge circling the district and all of us individually? Ouch! Make sure the kids don’t get too close.

This time around, Jantz states bluntly: “I am against government or state-sponsored religion.” That’s a relief, for sure, but in the same area on his site that includes that definitive statement, you will find this:

Our friends and loved ones often fall short of being able to reach to the depths of fulfilling this need and longing in our lives. I find my greatest source of comfort and hope in spending time praying and reading the Bible, asking God to show me and reveal to me His peace, comfort, and guidance. I would be delighted to help you find this source as well. If I can ever pray with you please let me know.

There’s nothing wrong with a candidate explaining his/her religious beliefs, of course, but this statement—and I believe it’s sincere—goes beyond description to proselytizing. It also brings up this question: Does Jantz really want to become a state Senator? Maybe, and I say this sincerely, he should become a full-time church minister instead and help people find “comfort and guidance” through the Bible.

So do voters in District 46 want a religious proselytizer offering prayer time or a proactive and experienced, savvy state Senator with experience running for a major statewide office? It’s really no contest. Rice, the Senate’s minority leader, is the clear choice for the district. He serves as one of the state’s most articulate leaders in opposition to the ultra-conservative agenda here and deserves reelection by another landslide. You can get involved with the Rice campaign and/or contribute here.

Brittany Novotny, who is challenging state Rep. Sally Kern for her House seat this election year, has published an intelligent and important open letter to the legislator, which should be read thoroughly by voters in District 84.

Kern, as most Oklahomans know, is infamous nationally for her anti-gay crusade. She once claimed homosexuality is a bigger threat to this country to terrorism. Kern’s 2009 Proclamation of Morality, a publicity stunt with no legal meaning, included language like this:

WHEREAS, the people of Oklahoma have a strong tradition of reliance upon the Creator of the Universe; and

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery;

Novotny, pictured right, doesn’t attack Kern on her beliefs, which are certainly extremist. She just wants to engage Kern in a discussion about the real problems facing the state right now and how to fix them. How in the world can you get anything done to improve schools or create jobs with arguments such as “our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis”? That’s an example of how Kern has sacrificed any sense of pragmatic leadership for promoting her dark, personal worldview.

In the letter, Novotny asks Kern why she spends much of her time on ideological issues and not the problems facing Oklahoma’s leadership, such as the state budget crisis. The letter asks:

Instead of spending your weekends and your time in the legislature “taking a stand against liberals,” why aren’t you finding solutions to our budget dilemma that will keep teachers in the classroom, police officers and firefighters on the street, construction workers improving our roads and bridges, and small businesses afloat?

Novotny goes on to argue that Kern’s main legislative goal has been to create a “big brother government.” According to the letter:

After examining your legislative record of the past six years, it appears that your main goal has been to institute a big brother government that looks into the private bedrooms and physician exam rooms of Oklahomans, while doing nothing to address the issues facing Oklahoma’s public schools (which you have stated are “failing our children”) or our crumbling infrastructure. Targeted tax incentives are great for economic development; across the board tax cuts that bankrupt our public schools and deplete resources that go to public health and safety will not make Oklahoma a more attractive place to do business.

It’s a huge understatement to argue that Kern’s social and religious agenda and her political stunts have embarrassed the state and made its residents seem hateful and intolerant to people throughout the nation. Novotny points out that an editorial in The Journal Record, a local publication, even argued that Kern is bad for business in Oklahoma. A state’s image is intrinsic to economic development.

Novotny, a local attorney, would be an engaged, intelligent legislator focused on issues, such as job creation and education. Here is her website that includes opportunities to get involved in her campaign.

The anti-education agenda of some Oklahoma leaders can’t get more apparent than last week when U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, the Republican nominee for governor, and U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn explained their opposition to a federal bill that would provide emergency funding to the nation’s schools.

According to recent media reports over the last several weeks, hundreds of Oklahoma teachers face layoffs this fall because of the state’s ongoing budget crisis. The federal bill, which passed the Senate Thursday, will provide $10 billion to school districts nationwide and another $16 billion for Medicaid funding.

Those who pushed the bill through the Senate—and it’s expected to pass the House this week—say the bill could save the jobs of about 300,000 teachers nationwide. Oklahoma could save 1,900 teaching jobs if the bill is signed into law, according to a published media report.

In a major disconnect, Coburn took the opportunity of the bill’s passing to blast, of all things, State Question 744, a constitutional amendment, which if passed in November, would simply require Oklahoma to fund education at a regional level. Let’s be clear: SQ 744 could never lead to deficit spending, which is Coburn’s big rant in Washington these days. The state is required to balance its budget.

Coburn, according to Chris Casteel of The Oklahoman, said:

Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution give Congress the authority to be responsible for teacher pay in Oklahoma. Teacher pay is a state and local function that should be performed at the state and local level.

I’m unsure what Coburn actually means here. Maybe Casteel didn’t put the comments in the appropriate context. The federal bill does not set teacher salaries or make the federal government “responsible” for them, and SQ 744, which Coburn criticizes, will obviously be “performed at the state and local level” through a direct vote.

Coburn is disingenuously trying to conflate the federal bill and SQ 744 under the broader rubric of criticizing the National Education Association (NEA), which is a red herring argument. The bottom line is this: Coburn apparently wants to ensure the state continues to fund schools at the lowest rate in a seven-state region and 49th in the country. He also obviously doesn’t care that teacher layoffs could lead to even larger class sizes in the state’s public schools. If this is not the case, they why won’t he address the specific issues?

Also, it’s telling Coburn made his comments after a recent polling showed 65 percent of Oklahomans now favor SQ 744. His comments can only be truly understood in the context of the panic-stricken anti-744 echo chamber.

According to a media report, Fallin announced her opposition to the federal bill using standard talking points about “printing” money and the future of children. She said:

I am opposed to such a plan for the same reason I have opposed other big spending measures supported by congressional liberals: we cannot keep printing and borrowing money and calling it ‘stimulus.’ I think most Oklahomans understand that we aren’t saving or creating jobs when we do this, we are burying our children under a mountain of debt.

Compare that comment to this one Fallin made in a recent press release, about her vote in favor of a $59 billion war supplemental bill:

I am committed to the strength and security of our nation for our children, grandchildren and generations to come. I am relieved Democrat leadership in Congress finally put their ideological differences aside to allow House consideration of a responsible version of this important funding bill.

So Fallin supports billions for war but no extra funding for local schools, and she wants to be governor. She could help save 1,900 state teaching jobs but declines to do so. Is this the type of leadership Oklahomans want? Note there’s no critique from Fallin about the war supplemental as a “big spending measure” even though both the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations, which have dragged on for years with no clear results, have helped create the current federal deficit. But, well, I guess Fallin cares about the security of “our children” even if that doesn’t happen to include providing them with an adequate education.

Meanwhile, The Oklahoman, the state’s extremist newspaper, published two editorials this week criticizing SQ 744. One editorial demonized the NEA for supporting the measure. (Note how Coburn’s comments echoed the editorial.) The other editorial was a juvenile attempt to deal with the concept of “average,” as in average funding for schools and the average number of counties, the average tax rate and the average number of school districts, etc.

The editorials don’t make much sense because the newspaper, along with Coburn and Fallin, refuses to deal with the main issue. Funding for Oklahoma school children is horrendously low compared to regional and national averages, and no amount of rhetorical subterfuge—demonization, red herring arguments, false comparisons, echo chambers—can ever begin to qualify it.