Quote:
|
i do not see the basis for your censorship claim in the first place.
|
Please, if you have time, go back and read the article and related articles. There are only three issues presented in them:
* Kenneth Willard is becoming the president of the State Board of Education by default because there is no one to run against him. (This is due, not to a lack of candidates, but because the laws prohibit new candidates from running after a certain date, even if all the other candidates have dropped out of the race.)
* Kenneth Williard has a history of supporting policy friendly to Intelligent Design. He voted to abolish some of the restrictions preventing some material from being introduced in the classroom. (That definition is summarized from CNN.COM, a link that I posted earlier. The article quoted says that he voted on legislation that included intelligent design in the classroom, which doesn't seem to be true. I think there's a world of difference between saying "we must include intelligent design in the classroom" and "teaching concepts like intelligent design should not be restricted".)
* People want to oppose Kenneth Williard's rise to presidency, although there's no legal prescident for it. He has done nothing wrong or illegal and has been very active within the State Board of Education.
What is this if not a case for censorship?
People want to shut this guy up because they don't believe what he does. They feel someone with his beliefs rising to power and influence, even though there is nothing about this guy's personality, history, or agenda, that suggests he would abuse his position.
Personally, I don't think it's a fair election and that's the only reason I would oppose the issue.
This really isn't a matter of whether or not ID is scientifically valid. People want to make it the issue as a straw man argument because its easier to attack and people can get behind that emotionally easier than they can get behind an effort to reform the legal election system of the state board. It sells more newspapers.