Tuesday, February 02, 2010

A reader disagrees.

A reader disagrees.

Vote for fiscal conservatives
for School Board
Voters who are concerned about bloated school referendums and the
recent increased property tax levy should vote for Randy Marquardt and
Dave Weigand for School Board on Tuesday, Feb. 16.
Marquardt and Weigand will be guided by conservative spending
principles in finding solutions for the tough financial and academic
challenges facing the district.
Keep in mind that free-spending liberals and the self-serving
teachers' union are united in opposing the election of Marquardt and
It should be noted that leftist professor and columnist Mark
Peterson recently dedicated an entire article in this paper opposing
their candidacy. He scornfully criticized their common sense values
and expressed strong disagreement with their conservative approach to
What’s more, as those on the left are prone to do, he satirized and
distorted their sincerely held religious beliefs.
That's enough for me. Randy Marquardt and Dave Weigand deserve our

Roger Bardoel

Agreed. To the extent that explaining their views in simple English constitutes distortion, yes.



Free Lunch said...

How will Randy Marquardt and Dave Weigand save taxpayers money if they seem intent on getting the school district into a very expensive legal fight over creationisms that they will lose?

MS said...

I agree with Free Lunch. It is very obvious that Marquardt & Weigand have an agenda.. a religious agenda... they have proven it over and over. Their agenda is not about preparing our children with a good education, but indoctrinating them into their particular religious views. It will cost us a fortune in time, money & divide the community.

DanBack said...

Notice David Weigand changed his blog a bunch last night. Gone is the chance to post your notes of support (along with that creepy poem someone wrote him).

I commented asking simply if he would promise not to try and either inject creationism or remove evolution from the classroom. In typical Ginny fashion, it was never posted. Which can only mean he isn't prepared to make that promise.

Kevin scheunemann said...

Here we go again....

Liberalism threatening lawyers to stomp out ideas and "diversity".

We now need lawyer approval to expose kids to a "diversity" of ideas?

I suppose if the kid steps into the library, exposing kids to creationism is just fine...why not at the schoolhouse?

Is there some sort of "special library religion" that makes creationism materials OK in the children's section of the library, but not the school?

And what if the children's library is in the school? Is that children's library verboten to stock materials on creationism?

Mpeterson said...

I guess if you could show that creationism wasn't a religious doctrine, and then convince the federal courts that you were right, we could go ahead.

Get back to me when you've got that done and we'll get to work on it.

Free Lunch said...

Kevin Scheunemann -

Apparently you didn't have any reason to pay attention when the ID/Creationists were making fools of themselves in Dover, Pa. Anyway, the final result was that the Discovery Institute, which had pushed this, ran away. They had been building on the attempts of a lawyer from Berkeley, Phil Johnson, to invent a secular corollary to creationism that managed to qualify in some way as science or, at least, not be too blatantly religious.

Of course the DI was too lazy and too full of folks who had no respect for science to bother to actually do any scientific work to justify their claims and they were too sloppy after Edwards v. Aguillard to bother to proofread their creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People after they had changed the name of God to designer. That ended up putting "cdesign proponentsists" into the lexicon of those who have no respect for ID because ID is nothing but sloppy creationism.

Anyway, if you want to know how completely wrong the ID/Creationists were and how badly they got beat in Dover, you have to read Kitzmiller v. Dover, a glorious decision by Bush appointee, John E. Jones III. Accept no substitutes. After you have read that decision, you will understand that ID/Creationism has nothing at all to do with science, that it is only religious doctrine. We know that the First Amendment says that religious zealots don't get to teach their doctrines, error-filled or not, in public schools.

Kevin Scheunemann said...


There's that phrase, "religious doctrine".

Not so easy to define. You need to be equatable in which religious doctrines you are censoring.

I trust the religious doctrine of gobal warming will meet with the same oppression you reserve for creationism and christianity...in the interest of "fairness".

Free Lunch said...


Do you always call scientific discoveries that you don't like "religious doctrines"?

Kevin Scheuneman said...

Free Lunch,

The data on global warming is flawed.

Me and Mark got down to the argument on the global warming data comes down to whether someone believes me or NASA.

I wrote an entry detailing all the mistakes of NASA over the years, but it has not been posted yet.

So, yes, the belief in global warming comes down to "faith" in NASA.

If that is not "religious", I don't know what is!

Even evolutionists admit there is "gaps" in the theory. You have to have "faith" the data for those gaps exist.

I don't know how you can make the argument either theory is good science. So if we are already teaching speculation about what some academia thinks is true, why not all the points of view?

Or are you going to join the ranks of the typical liberal censor, trying to stomp out viewpoints you don't agree with?