THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Tuesday, August 22, 2006


"Religious Correctness" Overrules Common Sense in Indian River

Give me a "Christmas" Break...

Running a public school district is expensive and I have to figure that one of the bigger expenses is insurance. Instead of managing that expense for the benefit of all the students, teachers and parents, the IRSD has decided to make themselves virtually un-insurable by turning down an settlement with the Dobrich family brokered by their insurance company. In passing on the settlement the district decided to put "religious correctness" above common sense and good business practices.

In general terms, the settlement would have compelled the IRSD to stop its program of creating a hostile environment for non-Christian students and would have derailed the districts push to make Christianity the official religion of the IRSD. More specifically, the IRSD would have had to stop referring to the December holiday as a "Christmas Break" (gasp!) on its calendars and would have had to accept guidelines on prayers at graduations and other public events.

What I'd like to know is - When did the Christians in Sussex County get such flimsy faith? Why is their faith so threadbare that having prayers which acknowledge the fact that not everyone believes in Jesus is such an overwhelming concern? I think that the reality of the situation is that the people of IRSD have sturdier faith than that - BUT they have fallen into the thrall of some "religious correctness" pimps.

Like the Dover, PA school board before them, the IRSD may soon find that these religious correctness pimps (like "Stop the ACLU", Gerald Hocker and the other State Reps who endorsed Christianity as the IRSD's official religion) don't really have the best interests of the IRSD at heart. For that matter, they don't even have Christ's interests at heart. They are in it as a business, to mine this issue for votes and money, and the IRSD just became a motherload for them.

hot damn, pimping o christ
waaaay crazy
I'm just checking to see if the board violated its oath of office (which has to say something about fiduciary responsibility) by letting themselves be taken in by these pimps. I can;t find the oath on-line.

Someone who has more google skills than I do should take that up...(hint, hint) .
1053. Oath of office of the school board member.

(a) Each school board member shall, before entering upon the duties of the office, take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Delaware, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of school board member according to the best of my ability; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered or promised to pay, contributed, or offered to or promised to contribute, any money or other valuable thing as consideration or reward for the giving or withholding a vote at the election at which I was elected to said office, so help me God (or I so affirm)."

(b) The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the president or vice-president of the school board of the school district or in the case of a newly constituted board by a person appointed by the Secretary of Education to administer said oath. (14 Del. C. 1953, § 1053; 56 Del. Laws, c. 292, § 6; 73 Del. Laws, c. 65, § 14.)

source =
Thanks for that.

No explicit mention of the fiduciary role. Maybe in the job description for board member.

Anyway - when the voters beging to feel the finacial impact of letting anti-american secularists run things, we might get some positive movement.
It is not the "secularlists" that are the problem, it is the radical christianists. They're the ones who are against the Constitution.
At your speedy research IRSD oath :)

(my first non-anonymous post)
Welcome aboard Mr. Knuckles!!!! Please give my best to the Angry Brigade.

Anon 9:41

I meant to say Anti-American Sectarianists.

My bad.
Funny how in the oath they don't say "So help me Jason"....
Funny how in the oath they don't say "So help me Jason"....
Ceremonial deism is a legal. The IRSD is prostelitizing.
There was also this bit from that article that you missed: and being forced to admit two children to an arts school ahead of other kids on a waiting list. I'm curious what that art school is and why the two 'chosen' pupils deserve the leapfrog treatment.
You're right. I failed to include that demand because I know it was not a sticking point.

It is just the type of demand that districts jump at when they have a chance.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]