Fellow Gazette columnists at odds
I am an avid reader of Don Flood's column. Although I often disagree with some of his opinions, they are well written, have a comprehensive command of the subject and generally are a fair read of the center left position.
The July 2 column had none of these characteristics. It seems to me, he was the losing pitcher for both sides of a double header, a feat not accomplished since the 1930s.
Regarding issue one: teaching the Bible in the high school. The Bible is a cornerstone of the foundation of our country and the laws of the entire western world. The arguments that teachers may be in jeopardy or the center of controversy, as dredged up from Kelley's comments, plus the characterization that it is the opinion of staff and faculty is not supported by a poll of the entire faculty, a simple matter to conduct, or any documentation, but is only an assertion by Kelley. I might add, it is another unfair indictment of the teaching profession.
Had Socrates chosen the avenue Kelley recommends and Flood endorses, he most likely would be a little known minor philosopher. The board could ask for a teacher to step forward to teach these courses. There are several with the moxie and the background to stand up to the controversy, to teach the course well and unslanted. "The faculty" is not a monolith. There are teachers from all sides of this issue.
The course demands to be taught, by a willing teacher or teachers, to willing students. It is well past time for the board to stand up to the tyranny of the vocal, very small minority, and begin demanding the district schools return to teaching the foundational instruments that brought forth this great country. It appears Kelly and Flood would rather pass the hemlock.
Regarding issue two from the same article - the bill concerning keeping guns from the criminally insane: I'm hoping Flood entirely missed the reason it was defeated by such large margins. In a typical over-reach, anti gun folks like Smyk were not satisfied to have a clean bill, which banned the adjudicated mentally ill or gun felons from getting guns. This type of bill would probably and rightfully have sailed through unopposed.
Instead, the bills drafters inserted a clause calling on health professionals to inform on their patients to the police. This was the crux of the bill's defeat.
Either Flood thought it was a good idea for healthcare providers to abridge a patient's rights or he missed the problematic clause or he wished to misdirect his readers in order to tar the pols, who actually made a good decision.
Flood is an honorable man, so I'm going for option two. The underlying idea for the law is excellent. Sadly, some sneaky legislator and/or his staff members tried to abridge the right of doctor-patient privilege in a gun bill.