Just because the "psuedo" issue as you describe is no issue for you - it can be for others. You always seem to miss that aspect of things in your arguments. Others may have a different opinion than yours. I know - novel concept.Reading my morning copy of the Dayton Daily I note that Mr. Budd missed the point of the policy proposal being discussed regarding controversial issues.
Little did anyone know that the policy dealing with controversial issues that arise in the classroom would itself be controversial.
The main crux of the policy is to require teachers to present both sides of an issue to the students when they arise in the course of normal classroom activities.
The policy in NO way, shape, or form advocates the teaching of creationism any more than it promotes abortion. It simply requires teachers to not advocate one side over the other, but to present both sides of an issue to the children
The list of topics the board feels would benefit from a free and open discourse of ideas from both sides of an issue include:
legalization of drugs
Who but the union and its supporters would have a problem with both sides of an issue being presented for debate and discussion?
As anyone who has lived a longer life, their are seldom issues that present themselves in strictly black and white terms. Life is filled with the grey area which makes it interesting. Teaching our children to begin the process of analyzing and interpreting various points and counterpoints in presentations will make them more confident in their ability to understand life in general.
ONe final side note is the fact Mr. Budd failed to mention the most salient point of the night. The notice given by the Budget and Finance Committee that it would support a renewal levy in November seems to have been lost in the psuedo issue described above.
Too bad, because that was really the big news of the night.
So you support the big news of the night? That would be big news that you support a levy. Don't you know that even a renewal levy...is taxes?