Former Delaware Politics Author, Shaun Fink resigns from Indian River School Board

I expect to update this article after I converse with Pastor Fink. UPDATE: Shaun Fink said that he would pray about returning. He gives his best to our readers and reminds them that to “GOD be the glory”.

Shaun Fink has resigned from the Indian River School Board. He resigned in disgust with the acquiescence to “the homosexual agenda”. Fink had just won reelection to a 5 year term in the May school board elections.

Fink fought a strong battle to block pro gay curriculum from being adopted. He ultimately lost. Fink was harassed, vilified and painted as some bigoted zealot, but he never backed down. Instead he took his case to the public and received a lot of support. He contented that 2% of the population should not be allowed to control the conversation.

Fink left DP because of time constraints. Now that he is no longer with the school board and The Caesar Rodney Institute, the time has come to invite him back. His views on the role of government, environment, taxes, economics, and culture are always thoughtful whether or not one agrees with him.

From today’s News Journal

Fink was appointed to his spot on the school board in 2012 and ran unopposed for it in 2013. He ran unopposed for his spot on the board this year, which would have been a five-year term that started July 1. In between him filing for the seat on Feb. 11 and the present date, he was told by multiple school board members that they were not on board with what Fink described as “fighting this permeation of darkness.”
“It’s certainly not a reflection of my affection for the board members at all,” he said. “They’re fine people, but either they condone the homosexual integration or they’re unwilling to stand against it.”

44 thoughts on “Former Delaware Politics Author, Shaun Fink resigns from Indian River School Board”

  1. Fink was harassed, vilified and painted as some bigoted zealot…

    Sounds like a good guy.

  2. Well anybody that wants to not have a gay agenda in the school system and is a strong Christian will be ostracized at a school board meeting.
    Mr. Fink met all those requirements, but he shouldn’t have resigned. Now his voice and opinion won’t be heard at all.

  3. From what I gather, the IR District approved in January a new health education curriculum that addresses HIV, STDs, pregnancy AND it addresses sexual orientation.

    I haven’t seen how these topics are treated, and I’d wager that David Anderson and Don Ayotte haven’t either. But maybe I’m wrong. Over to you David and Don.

  4. the people who see the homosexual agenda where others don’t clearly doth protest too much.

  5. Homosexuals or people that can supposedly be defined as a group (stereotype!) by their sexual desires and feelings do not have an agenda.

    Rich and powerful people with a minority Victim mentality do have a political agenda that suits their own interests and conception of themselves as a minority too.

    “Gay.”

    Sounds like a stereotype?

    They, whoever they are, can’t have a political agenda if they don’t have a strong tribal identity as a group first.

  6. Honi
    You’re right Honi, I haven’t kept up with what Indian River School Board is doing on those subjects but I don’t believe that Mr. Fink’s resignation adds anything positive to the situation. I’ve been much too busy with our new venture to attend school board meetings. However, the homosexual community represents a very small percentage of people in the district. Also, it is mostly heterosexual adults that have children in school.

  7. …. new health education curriculum that addresses HIV, STDs, pregnancy AND it addresses sexual orientation.

    There’s usually padding done by any lobby group.

    The most vicious supremacists groups in the world have their charitable fronts. Planned Parenthood has its breast cancer screenings. Rich and powerful people often hide their own “minority” agenda behind disabled children and a gaggle of minority victims. (To the point that one might wonder if their coalition of minorities is actually the majority.)

    The PR padding doesn’t matter and it’s fairly* simple minded to focus on the fluff instead of the actual agenda (Aka “conspiracy theory” according to them.) of groups of people.

    *Fairly/Whitely? 🙂 Seriously. I tell you, show White people one disabled child/minority/victim and apparently they’ll do anything. But I guess before we generalize about anyone but White gays that say they exist as a group and therefore have lobbies….. we have to get White people to admit that they exist and have special interests as a group. 😐 Whites… fun. 🙂

  8. However, the homosexual community represents a very small percentage of people in the district.

    I’ll give them this, at least they realize that they exist as a group and therefore have group interests.

  9. Mynym

    Why should such a small group dictate the educational forum for the majority? If you could answer the question without 5 pages of rhetoric and hate speech, I would certainly appreciate it.

    And, are the other school board members in fear of not being politically correct. Is that the reason that they would promote homosexuality? Are these the same people that sit piously in church on Sunday morning and act like good Christians, while their actions and votes on the school board reveal otherwise?

  10. Don, could you explain how the curriculum promotes homosexuality?

    How does one do that?

  11. Yes Nitpicker, because it actually promotes homosexuality. When something is taught to children and young adults that comes from an authority figure, subconsciously it endorses that behavior that is considered abnormal behavior by many, as normal.
    I can understand why Mr. Fink argued his point with the school board but I disagree on the reasons he resigned. By resigning, he shot himself in the foot and now has no voice or no vote. They ostracized him and he quit. Now, he has no voice.
    That is exactly what bullies do and that’s why they are successful.

  12. So Don, when my 10th grade history teacher- great authority figure-taught about Hitler’s Final Solution, he was endorsing genocide?

    I also remember being taught about The Shakers and the Maytag Communities. Was my teacher endorsing abstitence for life?

    The purpose of education is to teach about and prepare people for the real world, not to pretend much of it doesn’t exist.

  13. The purpose of education is to teach about and prepare people for the real world, not to pretend much of it doesn’t exist.

    Do they teach that, according to the CDC, male homosexual intercourse is the leading cause of AIDS?

  14. Mitch said:
    “So Don, when my 10th grade history teacher- great authority figure-taught about Hitler’s Final Solution, he was endorsing genocide?”

    Your analogy is like comparing the flavor of apple and oranges to be the same and I think you know that sir.
    Nice try!

  15. Don, could you explain how the curriculum promotes homosexuality?

    How does one do that?

    Very easily. You act (as a group) as if homosexuality is equal to the ideal that gave birth to this civilization and all this wealth in the first place and then children begin to assume that it is all equal. Here is how it is done:

    Broude (Broude, G. 1981. The Cultural Management of Sexuality. Ref. 279. :633-73) concludes that child training can have a profound effect on adult sexual orientation.
    (Annual Review of Anthropology,
    Vol. 16, 1987, The Cross-Cultural
    Study of Human Sexuality,
    D. L. Davis, R. G. Whitten :98)

    What you are trying to do applies to geometry itself as well.

    Geometry. It doesn’t get anymore real than that. Yet you people can get students to deny geometry based on the same abusive techniques that you’re using to deceive children now.

    It should come as no surprise that the perceptions of abused children are changing thanks to gay lobby groups (And a minority group that cannot be named.) establishing a gay identity.

    Now White people, to the extent that they have any group/”stereotype” identity… have to be gay to have a group identity and lobby groups. 😐

    🙂 Note this White people, your primary and primary identity is still White no matter what gay theatrical productions you produce. And guess what? You can’t promote being White.

    How does one do that?

    😉

    All I hear these days: “Feels. I. Me, ma, mooo… moooo me?”

    Get it together and stop acting gay, guys. If you do not then as the Empire continues to decline, the answer to you will be Total Fascism.

  16. Hoi, Nitpicker follow the link. There is no denying an agenda by the Gay lobby for greater acceptance and recognition. They are open about it. Books like Heather Has Two Moms are not an accident. The summer reading including a book on the struggles of a Gay teen versus her out of touch Christian parents were not his imagination.

    The argument is whether or not it’s the right agenda. In my judgment, some of it is and some is not.

  17. Why should such a small group dictate the educational forum for the majority?

    So long as White people are frivolous and silly and gay enough to fail to form anything but gay lobby groups, why shouldn’t the only lobby groups that actually exist wind up with political representation?

    If you could answer the question without 5 pages of rhetoric and hate speech

    You’re not going to get anywhere by engaging in gay love speech, which ironically is not all about rainbows for disabled children anyway. There is a wealthy minority pushing this stuff and they would have done away with free speech and dictated that everything be “love speech” directed at them by now if the Founders were not in their way. (I.e. the ethos of the Founders is in the way of a single tribe/faction centralizing power over other people, whether in the name of rainbows and minority victims and disabled gay boys that also want to be girls… or not.)

    …I would certainly appreciate it.

    Shrug.

    There is a reason that you guys here are ineffective. Have you stopped any of this stuff?

    No. Doesn’t seem like it to me. But “we” stop this and that and the other thing by taking on the minority that is attacking the traditions of the White tribes of the North and pushing this stuff on our children directly. That’s why we’re targeted and you’re not.

    And, are the other school board members in fear of not being politically correct. Is that the reason that they would promote homosexuality? Are these the same people that sit piously in church on Sunday morning and act like good Christians, while their actions and votes on the school board reveal otherwise?

    At this point…. Probably.

  18. Having both a mother and a father is the norm in civilization. It takes both a man and a woman to naturally reproduce. It also takes both a mother an a father to raise a child correctly. That is one of the big reasons that single mothers like having a male mentor for their growing boys. It makes sense.

  19. “When something is taught to children and young adults that comes from an authority figure, subconsciously it endorses that behavior that is considered abnormal behavior by many, as normal.”

    So, let’s go with the 2.6% figure. That’s one in 38, or about one in every classroom.

    You are saying that one in every 38 kids needs to be taught they are abnormal? Is that what you are saying Don?

    Secondly, the human species had always had homosexuals, and has somehow managed to reproduce just fine.

    Are you saying there is some way to convince heterosexuals to give it up and humans will suddenly stop having kids?

  20. You are saying that one in every 38 kids needs to be taught they are abnormal? Is that what you are saying Don?

    They shouldn’t be “taught” anything.

    Doesn’t the left constantly remind us that what happens in the bedroom is “nobody’s business?” Then why is someone’s sexual orientation anyone’s business?

    We don’t fully understand what went wrong in the abnormal sexual development of homosexuals. But, we know that it generally isn’t their “fault.” Hence, as individuals, they shouldn’t be discriminated against in any way.

    But, nobody likes to have abnormal behavior crammed down their throats- there is nothing more disgusting to watch than radical homosexuals depicting sexual acts on a float in a San Francisco “gay pride” parade.

    There is a huge difference between the gay individual and the gay agenda. If the left really believes that what happens in the bedroom is “nobody’s business,” then shut up already. Most of us are sick-and-tired of hearing about it.

  21. Some people think it’s important to let the one out of 38 know that they are not “abnormal” — unless you consider the presence of a trait in 3% or so of the population a definition of “abnormal.”

  22. “Are you saying there is some way to convince heterosexuals to give it up and humans will suddenly stop having kids?”

    It might not be what they are saying, but clearly it is what they believe.

  23. “there is nothing more disgusting to watch than radical homosexuals depicting sexual acts on a float in a San Francisco “gay pride” parade.”

    What about heterosexuals depicting sexual acts in practically all mass media all of the time?

    But, Rick, is this what was proposed to be done in the school district as part of the curriculum? Really?

  24. i have no doubt that there is an agenda by some within the gay community to antagonize people like shawn fink. the fact that people like him are so easily antagonized speaks to another issue.

  25. I understand that, Salty. But we are some 24 comments in, and there is still no specific information about this “pro gay curriculum” here.

    Don seems to believe that not treating people as “abnormal” (as if being an aged right wing blogger is ‘normal’) is abhorrent, and that humans will go extinct if the fairly consistent percentage of homosexuals in each generation are not ostracized.

    Rick seems to think they were planning some sort of exhibitionist parade through the school. I suppose, for equal time, they would have straight girls flashing their breasts and other things as is fairly common in, for example, the streets of New Orleans during Mardi Gras or various places during college spring breaks, but that’s “normal” for straight people. But I kind of doubt that over-the-top straight or gay behavior of that type was planned for the school. (and, yes Rick, I totally get that it is only icky when gay people do that sort of thing – excessive straight public hedonistic behavior is fine).

  26. Nitpicker, did you ignore the post above?

    Hoi, Nitpicker follow the link. There is no denying an agenda by the Gay lobby for greater acceptance and recognition. They are open about it. Books like Heather Has Two Moms are not an accident. The summer reading including a book on the struggles of a Gay teen versus her out of touch Christian parents were not his imagination.

  27. saltyindependent June 1, 2015 at 22:44 “i have no doubt that there is an agenda by some within the gay community to antagonize people like shawn fink. the fact that people like him are so easily antagonized speaks to another issue.”

    The homosexuals I have known would and do absolutely condemn the gay rights movement.

    And 99% of the gay rights movement is NOT gay…. simply bent on tearing down traditional America.

    You have a movement that is 99% NOT gay, speaking in the name of gays, most of whom want nothing to do with the disgusting attitude and antics of the gay rights movement.

  28. “Hoi, Nitpicker follow the link.”

    There are three links in the post. They go to News Journal articles discussing his objection to definitions. I didn’t find anything about Heather Has Two Mommies or what sounds like a run-of-the-mill teen/parent conflict novel.

    The bottom line is that anything other than “homosexuality is evil” is unacceptable to this guy, is that correct?

  29. mosely,

    what are we to make of the following statement from your above post?

    “The homosexuals I have known….”

    please elaborate.

    how did you know them?

    how many did you know?

  30. saltyindependent June 2, 2015 at 22:57 “mosely, what are we to make of the following statement from your above post? “The homosexuals I have known….””

    I have explained at great length many times.

    Sallty, what are we to make about the fact that liberals and liberals pretending to be independents are so uninformed and struggling to catch up?

    I am not trying to be rude or unkind.

    I am trying to suggest that at some point don’t you re-evaluate your positions?

    At what point do you figure out that you (all liberals) are ALWAYS wrong, always uninformed, always 10 steps behind conservatives?

    And I say this because the heart and soul of liberalism (including those trying to pretend to be independents) is the belief that liberals are smarter or better informed, when it is NEVER the case.

    If liberals would finally realize that they are struggling to keep up with conservatives intellectually and in knowledge of government, history, politics, and the real world….

    …. there might be HOPE of a liberal growing and learning something.

    So the failed philosophy of liberalism has to start with the delusion that the liberal is superior and knows better… when it is obvious that they couldn’t find a certain book in a library if their life depended on it. Unless it’s on TMZ, a liberal knows nothing about it.

    And this failed liberal philosophy is based upon assuming that conservatives take a position on homosexuality simply because conservatives have never met any homosexuals.

    And/or if conservatives simply met homosexuals we would see what nice people they are…. as if that would actually change anything.

    In reality, conservatives are knowledgeable about thousands of years of human history, understand the real world, understand human nature, understand the damage done to children from being test tube experiments in a liberal laboratory.

    So conservatives apply wisdom, knowledge, and understanding against liberal ignorance and superficiality.

    John Bartis and Arthur Partington, if they were alive today, would be absolutely disgusted by the gay rights movement in America and worldwide.

    But since our homosexual friends and also our neighbors lived their own lives and never worried about what other people think of them, they wouldn’t even bother to say anything one way or the other.

    Bartis and Partington taught drama at Choate and my brother enrolled in theatre and in their Summer abroad series in Italy, mostly in Arrezo.

    Because of that experience, my brother got his first major job at Brink’s, where he ended up pioneering a niche within the high-value shipping industry. He is on a first name basis with leaders at Lloyd’s of London. Everyone involved in his industry acknowledges that he created it.

    And he got started with contacts through our homosexual friends Bartis and Partington.

    When we came to pick up my brother from a voice lesson, my mother asked Bartis and Partingon to listen to my sister’s voice. They agreed that she had tremendous, but untrained, talent, and introduced her to Al Grimes in New York City for voice training.

    As a result of that encouragement, guidance, and insider recommendations, my sister ended up in Annie on Broadway, and from there on television as a reporter.

    When my Dad bumped into a widow in Florida who was struggling to finish the very small housing development that her husband had started before his death, Dad recruited Bartis & Partington to buy the housing lot next door to ours in that development on Dingman Drive, and my prep school headmaster bought another one.

    Most of the time we travelled for holidays to try to be with other family. But whenever we were at home, either we would go next door to have Thanksgiving or Christmas dinner with Bartis and Partington and John’s mother or they would come next door to join us for dinner.

    I say “Bartis and Partington.” We always talked about them as a single unit. They were clearly a lifelong homosexual couple.

    But they never went around talking about it. What for? They didn’t need to.

    Back in the 1970’s, they had all the legal and social benefits of being married. They were co-owners of an expensive house. They were co-owners of an Italian Gelatto store. They shared everything. They had wills to inherit from each other. They were designated medical contacts for each other, as later in life came into use.

    But to Bartis and Partington, the behavior of the gay rights movement today would DISGUST them and would.

    Live your own damn life, was their philosophy. Leave people alone.

    You want people to leave you alone? Leave them alone.

    You want people to treat you with respect? Treat them with respect?

    Bartis & Partington lived every day with satisfaction and happiness, and just went about living and being happy.

    They would be disgusted by the bitter, angry, nasty, rude, horrible excuses for humanity that run around trying to speak in their name today.

    But, you see, conservatives don’t decide about public policy based upon FEELINGS, the way liberals do.

    Liberals are superficial. So if they meet a likable drug dealer they think that dealing drugs should be legalized…. Just because they liked the drug dealer they met.

    Conservatives decide on public policy based on what is BEST for society.

    Homosexuality is BAD for humanity.

    Homosexual “marriage” is BAD for humanity, especially for children.

    But again liberals cannot understand.

    Liberals either want to BAN things or MANDATE it.

    There is no room for free choice in liberalism.

    So as a conservative, I am absolutely certain that homosexuality is NOT genetic (that’s impossible), it is a bad thing, and it is right to educate people to what is good.

    And yet — because I am not a liberal Nazi — I don’t confuse coming to a conclusion with forcing anyone to do anything.

    I will not hesitate to say what is right or wrong.

    But it is up to you to learn wisdom.

    It is not my job to run around and check up on people to see if they are doing it.

    As soon as I have explained what is right and what is wrong, MY JOB IS COMPLETE. That’s when your job BEGINS.

    But this is hard for liberals to understand because liberals either want to ban things or require them. So liberals cannot underatnd the concept of teaching what is right or wrong, but making YOU responsible to live up to those ideals on your own.

  31. Salty, also remember that only about 3% of the population of the United States is homosexual.

    Liberals have lied about that for years, but them’s the facts.

    Simple math — if you didn’t go to a liberal National Education Association government school — tells you that the vast majority of the gay rights movement is NOT gay.

    Only 3% of the country is homosexual. Many of those are just living their lives quietly like Bartis & Partington.

    So it is obvious mathematics that roughly 90% of the gay rights movement is NOT themselves homosexual.

    What are their real goals?

    Bartis & Partingon lived just fine as a homosexual couple in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

    So it isn’t that. Homosexuals don’t need anything from the gay rights movement.

    BUT LIBERALS NEED THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT, to tear down traditional society.

    The whole enterprise with liberalism is to destroy every power center that may stand in the way of fundamentally transforming America.

    So liberals who don’t care about homosexuals, for example, will push homosexual marriage to try to destroy traditional society, to pave the way for the new socialist hell on Earth they are planning.

  32. Nitpicker June 3, 2015 at 12:14 “Is Mary Cheney a “conservative”, Jon?”

    First, no.

    Second, who cares? Once again, being conservative has nothing to do with hero worship or following the crowd or following after celebrities.

    Conservatism and liberalism are in completely different universes, because conservatives reason from principle while liberals just want to be part of the herd.

    Liberals “follow the leader” while conservatives follow the truth.

    So liberals cannot understand that conservatives do not care if person A takes one position or another.

    Conservatives, by their nature, are devoted to what is true and right, even if they are the only person on Earth who does so.

    If you tell a conservative that nobody on Earth agrees with them, the conservative doesn’t care. A conservative is going to do what is right, even if everyone else does what is wrong.

    But liberals not only are sheeple but they imagine that everyone else is, too.

    So if the greatest conservative alive woke up one day and abandoned their conservative beliefs, no conservative would care in the slightest.

    They were not following conservative beliefs because of what someone else says, but because in their honest examination of the truth and reality they conclude that a position is right.

    For example, both Christine O’Donnell and I — separately and many years apart — along with millions of others with similar stories, have explained how when confronted with the facts about abortion we were forced to confront the truth AGAINST our own wishes.

    It doesn’t matter what you want. It doesn’t matter what you feel. It doesn’t matter who agrees with you.

    It only matters what is TRUE.

    And that is a concept that no liberal can comprehend.

    By their very essence, liberals reject the core concept of truth. There is no truth for a liberal… there is only what they feel at this particular moment.

  33. See, try to find a liberal making an argument based upon principle, rather than

    — appealing to hero worship
    — trying to shame and attack anyone who disagrees with them
    — impugning people’s motives
    — attacking the speaker as a bad person

    What if we could ever have a discussion about what is RIGHT based upon principles, ideals, values, and truth?

    So let’s say I think Nazi-ism is wrong.

    And then I meet German people I really like.

    My family visited Bavaria several times, and absolutely LOVE Germans, at least in the South, German culture, German food, the beautiful German landscape, etc.

    But that doesn’t make me change my views on the Nazi Party, or the sins of the German people from 1905 to 1945.

    The fact that I meet Germans that are wonderful people, whom I really like, that doesn’t alter in the slightest my views of the horrors and evils committed by Germans in World War 2.

    Conservatives reason from logic, truth, principles, and ideals, not feelings.

    So I have met some wonderful lesbians and homosexuals.

    But that doesn’t alter a rational and logical analysis of what is best for society.

  34. mosely,

    your reposes are tantamount to torture. i guess i should have asked you to limit your responses to a certain number of words. one of the questions i asked you required a quantitative answer.

    please answer the next question with one word

    are you gay?

  35. Some people think it’s important to let the one out of 38 know that they are not “abnormal” — unless you consider the presence of a trait in 3% or so of the population a definition of “abnormal.”

    Well, the 3% are abnormal. They inability to naturally propagate is abnormal for any organism, by the standards of Darwin or common sense.

    But why discuss it at all? As the Left reminds us, the bedroom is “nobody’s business.” So why is it the business of the schools?

    What about heterosexuals depicting sexual acts in practically all mass media all of the time?

    “All of the time?” Really? What “mass media” do you watch?

    In any case, heterosexual sex is normal, and thus, not revolting. Two men gyrating is disgusting- and grossly abnormal.

    I have nothing against a gay individual. I loathe the radical gay agenda.

  36. I applaud your inability to put yourself in the place of that 3%. Nothing more need be said about what kind of person you are.

  37. Why do the 3% need to publicly “celebrate” their sexuality? Who cares whether they’re straight or gay?

    That’s the “kind of person” I am. I don’t care about their sexual orientation. Why do you?

  38. “Who cares whether they’re straight or gay?”

    Teaching that gay people don’t need to be treated any differently from anyone else is apparently a problem to Mr. Fink. The objection he has is simply treating gay people as people.

    Merely saying, to a classroom that some people are attracted to people of the same sex, and that doesn’t make them any less human, is the objection here, Rick.

    Mr. Fink objects to reading the dictionary definition of the word “homosexual” to a classroom.

  39. You can’t “make” people accept homosexuality as normal. So why bring it up at all? A persons sexual orientation is nobody’s business. It is the left that constantly brings homosexuality into the limelight. I say live and let live. Enough prostyletizing already, all it does is foment enmity.

Comments are closed.