US: Mississippi legally bans teaching Richard Dawkins’ works to children
I don’t believe the following reported on the highly respected legal blog UKHumanRights is real; I think it’s a parody:
The Anti-Youth Subversion Act has been passed both houses of the legislature by an overwhelming margin, and signed into law by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who said that he hoped that it would serve as an example for other states to emulate:
Today we struck a blow for religious freedom in the great state of Mississippi. For too long our children have been unprotected against the nefarious teachings of Richard Dawkins. I have personally talked to many concerned parents who said that they were horrified when their children told them that God was a delusion or that human beings are simply carbon-based robots who took orders from the D-N-A. This law puts the end of that nonsense now. Let’s pray that Mississippi will be a beacon of hope for the rest of our Christian nation.
The comments on the original source indicate this is indeed fake; or more accurately, a Poe.
UPDATE: UKHumanRights Blog have now deleted their post.
UPDATE I: UKHumanRights Blog have now put up a new post





July 21st, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Looks like the UK Human Rights Blog fell for it though, lol.
July 21st, 2012 at 7:34 pm
There was a bit of made-up legal jargon to lend it authenticity, which obvioulsy aided duping the UKHumanRights blog, as it did me initially.
Folk see what they want to see, including atheists
July 21st, 2012 at 8:10 pm
barbour isnt the gov anymore (i dont think) so it isn’t likely it’s real.
July 21st, 2012 at 9:54 pm
UKHumanRights Blog have now removed their post.
July 21st, 2012 at 10:40 pm
UKHumanRights blog have put up another post entitled: Outlawing Dawkins hoax
July 22nd, 2012 at 5:57 am
Barbour is no longer governor of Mississippi. Phil Bryant is governor now.
Also, I was surprised to see your headline. I would not expect any conservative governor to ban Dawkins. Banning discussion of things that sexualize children, yes. Dawkins, no.