Who "Lindquist" is and why those interested in curbing bullying in schools should care, is apparent from reading the Strib item.
That referenced letter to the Anoka County Union from Lindquist before the vote on the proposed anti-civil rights bigotry amendment certainly rings the bell on the old saying, you are entitled to make up your arguments; but not to make up your facts.
Lindquist seems from the reporting to be a real domesticated turkey. Not a crafty wild turkey, but one of the bred-for-the-table ultra-dumb ones.
Can any reader email me an actual image of Bryan Lindquist? I will post it if provided. Does any reader have Lindquist's email address?
_______________
If you care to read boring minutes, this link. Lindquist is noted as having spoken at a school board meeting, first name misspelled "Brian." For other info using the proper spelling, "Bryan," this Google.
This "Parents Action League" cabal surely appears to be a group I'd not want to mix with.
Not that they are ominous or threatening. Just fence-post stupid from all I see.
Why seek out stupid people? They seem to have a way of intruding into your life and into public discourse without any effort by the non-stupid at seeking them out, or wanting to be in ear-shot of their oral meanderings.
However, bullying the children of the stupid or the bigoted over their parents' characteristics, or about heredity having an effect with the apple falling near the tree, is not really any better than bigots bullying nonconformists of whatever manner and degree they show of distance from some bully group's arbitrary and narrow-minded behavioral "norms." Bullying anybody is bad, and Lindquist has been called a bully, which, if true in his behavior, is obnoxious to egregious, depending on degree of meanness of spirit he might have shown. I don't know the guy, I only read about him, and from what I read I try to form an open-minded view of somebody who comes across as close-minded. Perhaps I misread things.
_________UPDATE_________
From a quick look, Bryan Lindquist wrote two LTE items to ABC Newspapers, Oct. 24, online here; and Oct. 26, online here. The Strib mention was of the latter letter. Both drew opposing LTE commentary (e.g., Ferber here, Kuehn here, Rebek here debunking the bogus study Lindquist offers as factual).
I think the bigger hoot is Lindquist's Oct. 24 writing, quoted in part here to provide the gist:
I would like to ask one basic fundamental question – when and by whom was defined marriage as between one man and one woman? [...] Marriage was defined by our Creator as a relationship between one man and one woman! [...] This is based on the premise that as believers we believe that there is more to life then the short time on earth and we believe that what is presented in His word – the Bible – is very clear on how to live our life which includes the definition of marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman. It also is clear on who to love – God – with all our heart, our mind, our strength. [...] When the Bible does not support this small sector of people’s cause then they want you to believe that it is OK to “alter” or “delete” certain segments in the Bible because humankind has developed and the Bible doctrine has grown old – it is outdated. Scary!! [...] There is only one definition of marriage clearly defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman and that definition was given to us by our Creator. The only relationship that will be ordained by our Heavenly Father is a relationship between one man and one woman!! [...] Having the marriage amendment pass in November will protect the definition of marriage between one man and one woman from that small sector of society that want to redefine marriage to further their cause, a cause that has nothing to do with the health of family and what is best for children as God intended.
[italics emphasis added]
Well, where to start? Leave it at the guess Bryan Lindquist's favorite website is other than this one. The basic myth of a chosen people starts with the Abraham saga, a tout of a chosen polygamist, and monogamy was enacted as law later, for separate reasons than Scripture, with divorce and sequential spousal monogamist relationships now accepted in our society, sequential polygamy, but not active polygamy in parallel. John Edwards, Patreus, and Arnold the Conan can tell you about that. Then there are Catholic clergy who are deemed married to their church, spiritually, and hence abstain, in an ideal world, from carnal commerce of any kind once having taken a vow.
My biggest worry is a marriage between one raving idiot and another, given a belief in genetics.
My great uncertainty is why Lindquist did not quote or cite Scripture; but only claimed knowing it. Duh. Go figure.
Do you figure Lindquist eats shellfish?