Matt Wuerker by Matt Wuerker

Matt Wuerker

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 4 months ago

    Yes so many ways to kill public schools they want dead. To them secular = Atheist which it doesn’t unless you want a theocracy and then it magically does.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, 4 months ago

    You think that’s a problem?! Maybe Wuerker should look up what the Critical Pedagogy and Social and Economic Justice crowd on the Left is doing with science education.
    And, what’s with the “vouchers?”
    .
    Social and Economic Justice public schools make anything the Religious Right is doing look like a puny joke. The Left in education is disasterous on a national scale.

  3. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 4 months ago

    Conservatives are fine with using public funds (aka Tax Revenue) to send their kids, via “vouchers”, to private schools. They do, however, have a problem if the private religious school isn’t Christian.
    .
    I personally have a problem with using public funds to support private schools, regardless.

  4. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 4 months ago

    Good ’toon, Mr. Wuerker. Well drawn, well considered.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 4 months ago

    The research indicates that vast amounts of public money is going to schools that teach nonsense — there’s no better word for it — in place of science, using charter schools and vouchers, while taking away resources from core schools that teach kids that need it.
    Many of those schools are religious in nature. Before anyone accuses me of being antireligious or atheist, Catholic schools (which I attended for twelve years) teach real science, including evolution. So do many others. It’s those schools that, as Neil deGrasse Tyson put it, “use the Bible as a textbook.”
    I don’t want MY tax dollars going to fund a private church-run ignorance center, that will help cripple our ability to compete globally. If people want to pay for that, let them. Or let their churches pay for that.

  6. ODon

    ODon said, 4 months ago

    @motivemagus

    Well said.

  7. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, 4 months ago

    Where do Liberals fit into a corporate school type curricula? The teachers have no lee way and must stick to a rigid schedule by the numbers in the book teaching to an equally rigid test that counts for all the grades for a year. A lousy way to teach in every way. Conservative thy name is corporation.

  8. crabbyrino

    crabbyrino GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    The unnamed ones would be “right-to-work prep” and “barefoot and pregnant prep”.

  9. Rx71Wm29

    Rx71Wm29 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    I thought that particular apple had rotted away long ago.

  10. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 4 months ago

    Your new handle is amusing; you cannot preemptively claim to be correct enough for that statement. And, of course, “having an open mind” does not mean letting your brain fall out.

  11. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    @Condoreggs

    Dude, the voucher program was designed for lower income, inner city students that are assigned to a F grade school. It is for the parents that can NOT pay for private education to have the same opportunity as others with more means. Not conservatives or liberals.

    However, teaching to a “standard” in public schools has lowered the standard. One MUST teach to the lowest common denominator in any effort to make sure that a majority reach the goal. When they don’t then the requirement to "pass’ is lowered.

    Check it out.

    I have to agree with zuhlamon though. Vouchers should be used at the school of your choice.

    I did not send my kids to a private school (not because I could not afford it though it would have been a stretch) because I did NOT want someone else involved in their spiritual/religious training.

    God/nogod is a PERSONAL thing. It takes study and wide experience in various religious subjects to even start to understand that subject.

    Am I wrong?

  12. markjoseph125

    markjoseph125 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    @Bruce4671

    What is hard about understanding that there is absolutely NO evidence that any sort of god exists? Sure, many people think that some god(s) exist, but then again, many people think that angels, demons, leprechauns and fairies exist.

    The point is not what people believe. The point is whether or not science is going to be taught in science class. The religio-politicos from the right (contrary to what Enoki said, far more numerous and far more dangerous than those of the left) would like nothing better than to prevent this, as ignorant people are easier to control than are educated people.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    @markjoseph125

    Well, OK fine. That is as good an opinion as any other.

    Now let the scientist in you consider this.

    IF a being of far Superior intelligence, with advanced technology that allowed them to travel between the stars without losing time relative to themselves (no suspended animation, no generation ships but just point A to B right now) and bring with them all their needs and desires (supplemental tech for their comfort as an example), would they not be viewed as “gods” by a primitive culture and in some cases by YOU?

    In fact, the World Dictionary offers this definition of god.

    1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some forceRelated: divine

    Along with

    4. a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men

    So the concept I offer you is not unknown among scientist.

    So while you may not have evidence that convinces you – and that is fine – there is still the “possibility” that such an entity does exist.

    Don’t close your mind to an idea. Once closed the door may be locked.

  14. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon said, 4 months ago

    Religion relies on an instinctual, visceral need for comfort and hope. It’s probably genetic, but religion helps provide comfort (and historically, political power). Regardless, it also relies on the notion that the absence of proof is not proof of absence (the essence of the closing argument from Bruce, above).
    .
    The underlying theology, in my opinion, ought to be Cause No Harm. Again, in my opinion, if a religion requires predatory proselytizing and physical and/or economical threats to non-believers, then it ceases to be a religion and is a political force. Predatory Islam can be a threat, same as the Christian Taliban in their demands. There are intrinsic merit in each of the worlds major religions – but dogmatic adherence to predatory tenets causes more harm than good.

  15. markjoseph125

    markjoseph125 GoComics PRO Member said, 4 months ago

    @Bruce4671

    Your argument about the super-alien applies equally to leprechauns, unicorns, and fairies. Yes, they are logically possible, just as some sort of god is logically possible, but again, that is not the point. The point is that there is no evidence for the actual existence of this logically possible god, any more than there is for the existence of a logically possible leprechaun.

    I’m completely open to any evidence you wish to adduce in favor of the existence of some sort of god. Bring it on.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).