Texas Approves Conservative Curriculum 999
Macharius writes "Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. The article goes on to mention that Texas's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology, but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country?"
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
In God We Trust... but not with much.
Render unto Cesar. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.
If they want to put something that reflects Christian values on the money, they should use "Render unto Cesar".
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern American Christians? That would never fly- they don't believe in rendering anything unto Ceasar, they think taxes are evil all the while living in states that receive more than a dollar in federal aid for every dollar taken.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Republicans don't care about lower taxes. (Score:4, Insightful)
... I vote Republican because I don't want a 50% overall tax rate.
a) If you voted for Democrat(s), you would not be supporting a 50% overall tax rate. b) While Democrats tend to vote for more government services i.e. expenditures, often without raising tax revenues to pay for it, Republicans tend to vote for eliminating tax revenues, often without eliminating government services that they finance. Neither situation is in the best interest of the citizens of the USA as they increase future taxes more than otherwise be prudent. That's one reason I consistently vote for people that are not endorsed bay any political party for the Federal or State office I'm casting my vote for. Last presidential election I voted for Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, NJ. I'm willing to vote for a Democrat or Republican that supports the public funding of federal election campaigns as advocated by fixcongressfirst.org. But only for one term.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another prejudiced remark/insult (stereotyping based upon their group, rather than as individuals).
Boy you're really showing your superiority there. (Not.)
AuMatar seemed to be suggesting that Christian fundamentalists overwhelmingly favor lower taxes for the purpose of reducing government, despite relying heavily on government programs, services, and pork.
You blithely call him a bigot with no supporting evidence. Most of Slashdot is familiar with hand-wringing, think-of-the-children arguments. This is why people often ask for factual evidence.
Prove him wrong with something other than outrage.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.
The problem with some American Christians is that they believe in Manifest Destiny [wikipedia.org], where the USA is a Christian Nation and it's mission is to spread the word throughout the world. Others are Dominionists [wikipedia.org], Christian Reconstructionists [wikipedia.org], or other flavors of Christian Talibans. And like the Talibans in Afghanistan and Pakistan if they ever get the chance they've dictate to others they must live "the Christian way". They would even bring back stoning for adulatory and other sins. Here's one that even says The bible permits slavery. [blogspot.com]
Falcon
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society
Or you could have ended up lie - OMG - Canada. Canada didn't fight to be free of Britain, and look a them - still a British colony - except they're NOT ... and they're also a post-xian society, with universal health care.
If you fundies brains were dynamite, you couldn't even blow your own noses. So blow it out your ear.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society
I agree that the OP is an idiot (substituting one set of religious rulers for another set is hardly an improvement), but note that we still have issues such as the bishops who get given seats in our House of Lords, or the legal requirement for Christian worship in all UK schools (including state schools - the only exception is Faith schools where they can teach myths of a different kind instead). Hell, I even have to pay £100 for insurance when buying a house, because of the medieval Chancel repair liabilities [chancelrepair.org] that the Church still has on thousands of properties.
It's interesting that despite the legal grip of Christianity on the state, compared with the US's separation of church and state, the UK has a far less religious population (both in terms of raw numbers, and also in terms of fundamentalist beliefs). But that doesn't mean the UK is a secular society - I still wish I wasn't under the rule of the Anglican church.
Though to get back to the earlier post - despite the UK still having state religion, I find it funny that at least we print Darwin on our bank notes [wordpress.com] :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
" Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society"
And? They're also increasingly being smothered by the nanny state. In government jobs, you literally have to have "stepladder" training before you can use a stepladder. Just last week, we were discussing... right here in Slashdot... about how the government of the UK was thinking about placing monitoring devices in people's garbage cans. Post-Christian societies all seem to be sliding more and more into a kind of micro-managed, hyper-PC existence. Is that a better existence?
Don't make the mistake of thinking that eliminating religion will suddenly bring about utopia. That's hasn't been the case throughout history. Very, very few people are truly anarchists, or even independent. More than likely, toss out the religious influence that you loathe so much, and in return, you'll get rule by experts that know what's good for you, and will enforce it.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without those religious fundamentalists fighting and dieing for their beliefs you would still be stuck under the rule of the Anglican church.
Religious fundamentalists? You mean the Taliban?
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Your knowledge of history is shockingly bad.
It's amazing how you can make such a sweeping statement from a simple seven line sentence.
...Hitler and his party (decidedly non-Christian)...
No Hitler was Catholic. If he was warping Christianity to suit his own sick views of world domination, well thats not really different that a lot of leaders in power. Take a look at the following for documented evidence of his (grantedly twisted) Christian views, if you have any intellectual curiosity that is. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html [stephenjaygould.org]
Oh, and universal healthcare is indeed socialist.
No it is not. This just means you have no idea what socialism is. Do you also consider the public school system, police, firefighters and the military to be socialist? Don't confuse socialism with social programs. They are two completely different things.
Your healthcare is way overpriced for the services you receive. You are paying for all the accountants and administration in the background to track every little nickel and figure out how to bill for it. If this was just paid for (as in Canada) then health cost for identical service would be halved (as in Canada). This has been analyzed and documented to be true.
It's often said that America has the best health care in the world. Well this is true but what isn't said is that the majority, upwards of 90% or more, of Americans cannot receive this type of care because they cannot afford it. The rest get good healthcare no different than say Canada, just twice as expensive. Then there is a sizeable group that cannot afford any healthcare.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether you believe in God or not is not the point. The point is that this country was founded on religious freedoms. Those same freedoms that allow you to post on boards like this. Without those religious fundamentalists fighting and dieing for their beliefs you would still be stuck under the rule of the Anglican church.
For those who didn't take 14 years of church history here is a little refresher on religious freedom. The people fleeing England weren't fleeing some oppressive conservative organization. They were mostly people who thought that religion has become to liberal.
So they all moved to America. At which point they did the exact same thing which they were fleeing. They began enforcing their even stricter and more conservative laws upon the land. The punishments were the same as they were in Europe: execution, imprisonment and beatings. This wasn't a peace loving open minded bunch of religious extremists who just wanted to be left alone. These were Christian Taliban who thought their home nations were becoming bastions of sin.
The people who really advocated religious freedom weren't either the Europeans or the Puritan extremists it was the Deists and the Quakers. The Quakers were tired of being persecuted by the religious extremists who founded the country and the Deists thought religion itself was unproductive and divisive. If the textbooks want to really "present the truth of this country to school children" the textbooks would clearly state that a large portion of those who wrote our constitution and advocated religious tolerance were practically atheists. Thomas Jefferson even rewrote the bible without any miracles or super natural powers... now, questioning Christ's divinity, that's heresy in any branch of modern Christianity.
If I had to choose between being stuck under the Anglican Church (a church founded in order to liberalize church law) and the Puritans (a church founded in order to further restrict law) I'll take the Anglicans. Saying the Puritans gave us religious freedom is like saying the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from the oppressive democracy which was destroying Islam.
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
I would laugh if your comment was not so insulting.
I'm a Republican and ever since I left college I've been listening to college lectures on tape, in order to expand my knowledge of history and philosophy. The idea that I must be stupid because I have an (R) after my name is almost as insulting when Pres.Carter said I must be "racist" because I attended a Tea Party Rally last April 15.
Stop prejudging people as groups.
We are not groups. We are individuals which means we ALL think differently, even if we do share the same label. Not all Republicans are uneducated brutes, or racists, just as not all Democrats have altars to Marx or Mao.
\
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
A Republican that thinks that all Democrats are stoned out hippies that can't hold a rational thought is a moron. A Democrat who thinks that all Republicans are selfish ultra-capitalist fundamentalists is a moron. For ALL of you: Remember, there are people in the OPPOSING PARTY that are significantly SMARTER than you... REGARDLESS of which party you're in.
Any idiot that paints all conservatives or all liberals as idiots should rightfully be considered an idiot.
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:4, Interesting)
I have known uneducated and racist republicans (as well as many who are neither). Have not met a democrat with an altar to any human being at all.
Your invalid contrast belies your request for an end of prejudice.
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans believe:
That there were WMD, but Saddam moved them to Syria.
That their weren't WMD, but we had good evidence he did.
That even if we didn't have evidence, Saddam said he did, and wouldn't let in inspectors.
That we've put on more debt in 1 year under Obama than 8 years with bush.
That the best thing to do in a recession is to balance the budget.
That social security is in crisis.
That Barney Frank forcing banks to loan to black people is what caused the crash of 2008.
That tax increases on the ultra rich are class warfare, but tax increases on everyone else are fair.
That gay marriage threatens marriage.
That the US has the best health care in the world.
That the most conservative, free-market based healthcare overhaul you could imagine coming from a Democrat is a dangerous socialist experiment.
That contrary to the Democratic plan, the best way to fix health care is a combination of tort reform and letting insurance comapanies pick their favorite state to regulate them.
That invading Iraq wasn't a war crime.
That torturing people isn't a war crime.
That we only tortured terrorists.
That waterboarding isn't torture.
That holding people without trial forever is ok.
That an illegal, dictatorial system of counter terrorism is better than a legal one.
That Bill Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents.
That Sarah Palin might make a good president.
That Rush Limbaugh isn't a toxic zit on the ass of humanity.
You probably don't believe *all* of these things, but any one of them is obviously false or flatly ludicrous, and if you don't believe any of them, why would you be a Republican?
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm very careful about the labels I attach to myself. I wouldn't join a group which has a significant racist, homophobic or anti-intellectual component to it's ideological base.
You may well not be racist. You may well not be a homophobe. You might well value intellectual pursuits. You have joined a political party which on the whole is functionally racist, ideologically homophobic and has numerous policies which are anti-intellectual to the core. People have to make snap judgements to get by most of the time. It is reasonable to make snap judgements about people when one does not have the time nor the duty to make a more in depth investigation of a person. If you don't like being considered a racist, a homophobe or an anti-intellectual when people are in a position that requires making snap judgements or inferences the solution is simple. Leave the Republican Party.
Brother Glitch23 (Score:5, Insightful)
Brother Glitch23,
Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died for my sins. We follow God by taking up our crosses and feeding the hungry, visiting the imprisoned, healing the sick and clothing the naked. We preach the good news and the acceptable year of the Lord.
I am a Liberal, I am your Christian brother, and if you don't believe me, just go ask Pop.
And as much as it pains me to point this out, you have some reading to do.
There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion.
I'm assuming you're referencing the Puritans, since Jamestown was a fairly commercial endeavor. Your problem is that those Puritans would not have recognized you as a fellow Christian, any more than you most likely recognize Catholics as fellow Christians. If you're a Southern Baptist, Assembly of God or any other Evangelical, you'd have been shunned as a heretic.
BTW, those Puritans you're putting on the pedestal, you might want to read a little Hawthorne, or the history of King Philips' War. The Indians saved the lives of the Puritans that first winter. The children of the Pilgrims paid them back by slaughering the Indians' children and stealing their lands. Like I said, don't take my word for it. Go spend some time with Nathaniel Hawthorne.
"There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs."
Sigh. Start reading Jefferson. Read it long, read it hard, and read it in the knowledge that it was written by a man who spent his nights literally cutting and pasting the supernatural out of his copy of the Bible. Read it in the knowledge that the man who wrote this nation's beginning had a decades-long affair with a woman that he owned as a slave.
If you think it's going to be diffiult to square Jefferson with your theology, tighten your seatbelt and hang on, because when you read about the unbridled debauchery that was Benjamin Franklin...
When you can't take that any more, start in on the "Federalist Papers." They're dry, they're tedious, and they'll permanently put to bed any idea that this was meant to be a "Christian" nation.
As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above.
Sigh. That motto was put on US currency in 1956, during the same wave of panicked nationalist fervor that spawned Hoover and McCarthy. Are you sure the Church should be laying claim to that?
But since we're talking about Christianity and Coins, let's go back to the book we really ought to be reading. When the Zealots asked Christ "Is it lawful to pay taxes unto Ceaser?" it wasn't a financial question. You didn't exactly file a W-2 with Rome. Taxation under Rome was a lot closer to outright mugging. Why do you think tax collectors like Zacchaeus were so hated?
What the Zealots were really asking was "Don't you think it's time to throw off Roman bondage and establish Isreal as God's Holy Nation again?"
Look at His answer. Give it to them. Look at His other answers. Sell all that you have, and give to the poor. If they take your shirt, give them your coat too. If they make you a slave, do more than they ask you too. Resist not evil men. Give to any who asks. Here, take this, care for this man and if you need any more, charge it to my account. I'll pay it. Put down that sword, I don't need you to fight for Me, my Kingdom is not on this world and if you're fighting over things that are here, you have missed the point. Yes, I'll die to save people who do not deserve it. I'll die to save the people who are actually killing me.
My Kingdom. Is. Not. Here.
Those men in Texas have forgotten this. They don't want to take up their cross. They want to lay down the law. They seek to further the Kingdom by political will, rather than by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and visiting the imprisoned.
And my real fear for those men is they'll be asked why they didn't one day...
Who do you think controls the fate of the Church? (Score:5, Insightful)
The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state
Um, Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and Render unto God that which is God's? Remember Pontius Pilate's question? Are you a king? The response? My Kingdom is not of this world. As far as this world goes, our Lord Jesus Christ believed in the separation of church and state. He specifically chose not to join the Zealots who wanted to overthrow pagan Rome and found a new free Isreal loyal to God. You want to talk about evil Liberals suppressing religion, can you imagine living in a world where the cities you lived in were officially dedicated to a Pagan god?
And Christ chose not to bother with it. He had larger concerns than temporary distractions like the rule of Rome.
But let's suppose you got the Theocracy you want. Which Christian Church is to hold sway? Will you follow a President loyal to the Pope? No? Greek Orthodox? An Anglican, perhaps? No? Want a Good Ol' American denomination, do you? Episcopalian? Methodist? Seventh Day Adventist? Plain ol' Baptist? Church of Christ? Oh, you'll be happy so long as it's Evangelical? Really? Southern Baptist? Assembly of God? Vineyard Ministries? Got a favorite in there, do you?
We can't even get the followers of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn and Robert Schuller to agree on a coherent plan of action. When you try to wed civil power with Christian religious authority, it results in endless fighting. You might want to ask the British about that.
There's a reason why the first Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's why the Founding Fathers used weasel words like "Creator" and "Nature's God," because they specifically did not want to reference Jesus Christ the Messiah or Lord God Almighty Jehovah. By the way, more reading to do -- "Deism."
If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home.
Hi. Remember me? The Liberal? No one is looking to ban religion in this country. For goodness' sake, the Sheriff's office directs traffic at the churches on Sundays in my town. Our previous attorney general was the son of an Assemblies of God minister and a fervent supporter of that church. To imply that the Christian Church in America is under any kind of persecution is to dishonor the memory of all the Christians who actually were persecuted and actually did die for their Faith.
But let's suppose it happened, let's suppose Obama really did turn out to be Lucifer's left hand, and the First Amendment got repealed next week. Let's suppose a profession of Christianity merited summary execution starting next Monday.
Do you suppose it would endanger the Church at all? Or will you join me in believing that God Almighty alone decides the fate of the Body of Christ? By the way, that decree actually happened once. Rome decided to stamp out Christianity once and for all. All the Roman swords and lions did was fan the flame of the Word all the way across Europe.
Do you know why? Because Men and Earthly politics do not decide the fate of the Church. God doesn't need the support of the Legislature, or the school board or the Media.
Since this is Slashdot, after all, God ... doesn't need a starship.
I have good news for you, Brother Glitch. God is still in His Heaven, and all the evil sandal-clad long-haired dope-smoking Liberals of the world do not pose a threat to His Church. He built that church on a rock, and the very gates of Hell will not stand against it, so I don't think Nancy Pelosi is much of a problem.
You can relax. We're covered.
Well, we're covered on that problem. As I continue to read the Gospels, we seem to have other issues. It seems that our Lord (Luke 4) has come to preach good news to the poor, t
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
what I and i think most other people object to is when they try call it science and cherry pick some facts and misrepresent the truth in schools to try trick kids into buying into their faith.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
MC Hawking, Entropy
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
religion
Two very separate and very different things: One can be taught. The other is pure faith and belongs in a church, not a classroom.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Where did you hear that?
According to the National Assessment of Education Progress [ed.gov] Texas was doing just fine.
4th Grade Math: 242 (National Average: 237)
4th Grade Reading: 219 (National Average: 217)
8th Grade Math: 281 (National Average: 278)
8th Grade Reading: 258 (National Average: 260)
Why Texas? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Texas? (Score:5, Informative)
From the NY Times:
"California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?scp=3&sq=texas%20education&st=cse [nytimes.com]
If true... (Score:3, Insightful)
i.e. "Texas is the second largest textbook market, but it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead."
Re:Why Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the conservative anti-intellectual thing, I think. In Texas any uneducated asshole can put in his two cents about educational standards, and he's given equal weight with trained, experienced teachers.
Re:Why Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.
But the state continues to be portrayed by the rest of the country as a homogeneous liberal wasteland, populated entirely by hippies and surfers.
In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.
Re:Why Texas? (Score:5, Interesting)
Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
LOL. Nice to see someone point this out for a change. And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves. You heard it right, folks. Most of "Hollywood" is conservative. Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project. The paeons working in the industry, on the other hand, well, creative types invariably and almost by definition espouse (often quite vocally) philosophies different from the mainstream.
I'd even go farther. There's parts of Kansas, Texas and other states in the deep South are more hip, liberal and/or progressive than what's here in California. I'm fortunate to live in a bohemian-ish enclave, but it's surrounded by miles of working-class, blue-collar neighbourhoods with American flags flying in their front yards, and Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and trucks. In the wealthier communities, the Bush/Cheney stickers are on SUVs.
Conservative California (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.
And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.
Case in point: look at the county by county results [google.com] for proposition 8 (banning gay marriage). Outside Alpine, Mono, and Santa Barbara counties, and the greater Bay Area (a shoe-in), the entire state voted "yes" to ban gay marriage. Honestly I'm rather surprised by Alpine and Mono, being some of the most inland counties, where inland is traditionally more conservative.
Re:Why Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
California isn't half so liberal as you apparently believe it is. While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process. They've also elected quite a few governors, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson. The state school board is rather conservative. Overall, it looks a lot like Washington does now: the Dems, though in the majority, are ineffective. The Republicans are obstructionist. The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.
"I reject notion of separation of church and state (Score:5, Funny)
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Oh boy.
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:4, Informative)
"Respecting" is used in the sense of concerning or referring to, not in the sense of esteem. And establishment is used in the sense of an existing institution, not creating a new one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is clear what the founders meant in their papers and notes, as well.
But their papers and notes are not in the Constitution and thus superceded by the debatable wording of the Constitution itself.
For more tortured constitutional phrasing see:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
With the positioning of the commas in that sentence it says that you had to be alive at the time the Constutitution was adopted (circa 1787) in order to be eligible t
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:4, Insightful)
The question I have for you is if you have schools that includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. what kind of prayer or religious symbols would you allow in the school. Allowing a dominant Christian culture to take over may be intimidating to members of other religions and the non-religious, something the Federal Government is required to protect you against in public life.
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you, pal, but the vast majority of liberals in this country are also Christians.
It's pretty pathetic seeing the right-wing talk about 'states rights', when they only care about that concept when it suits them.
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, the joys of willful ignorance.
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
I believe it was a fairly well documented strategic move by the Regan administration. Or was it Bush senior? Either way, the Republicans did it to counter act the image of them being all about the rich protecting the rich and grab some extra working class votes.
Panned out pretty well, much to the annoyance of anyone who believes in conservative economic policies, but not in Jesus.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Panned out pretty well, much to the annoyance of anyone who believes in conservative economic policies, but not in Jesus.
In addition to the annoyance of those of us who believe in Christian values, but not in conservative economic policies.
It was the answer to an important question. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the late 80s, the republican base was slipping. Bush I barely won against Dukakis. Keep in mind, Bush was at the center of political power his whole life, headed the CIA, and had just completed 8 years as Vice President. His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about Willie Horton [youtube.com].
In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian. Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics, until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement. As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life, you'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you. Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it. The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that's something the ruling business party cannot allow. They brought her in for the VP job, but she couldn't pull the moderate record of McCain. Palin could have been the sideshow, but the business party is greedy, not crazy, and they'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.
The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc. They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them, and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday. Now they are being used up by two seats of power: Republicans and their own church leaders. The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests, and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money, and gives them a bunch of it.
Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As late as the middle of May Dukakis was leading 49 to 37 in the NYT poll.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/us/poll-shows-dukakis-leads-bush-many-reagan-backers-shift-sides.html?pagewanted=1 [nytimes.com]
* Only 32 percent of registered voters said the Reagan Administration has done a good job handling the budget deficit; 60 percent said it has not.
* On the problem of illegal drugs, 36 percent said the Administration was doing a good job; 55 percent said it was not.
* On dealing with the conflicts in Central America, 35 percent rated the Administration as having done well; 52 percent said it had not. ...
Moreover, when voters were asked which party would do best at handling whatever they identified as the nation's most important problem - a question poll takers regard as a key leading indicator of voting decision - 40 percent said the Democrats and 29 percent said the Republicans. Democrats have never enjoyed such an advantage since the Times/CBS News Poll first asked the question in 1980, when indeed the Republicans had that big a margin before Mr. Reagan's first victory.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Various institutions have co-opted the name (most notably the Catholic Church, but there have been many others including the Republican Party). But just using the name doesn't make it Christian. I don't think an institution or organization can even be christian, I think that's reserved for people.
Jesus was completely clear that we should lead by example, and not by ordering each other around, claiming moral superiority, or threat of force. That puts just about every political party and government institution outside the realm of practicing Christian values.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure what he really meant to say is that these things are okay as long as it's not the government who is doing these things, then it's a work of the devil.
Orwell Gets it Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
This debate is Ridiculous! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hah! (Score:5, Informative)
Take that, O reality with your liberal bias!
Another Chinese Import (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I'm surprised the politicization of classroom materials hasn't been more flagrant and widespread. I'm also wondering why there isn't more of a flip-flop between liberal and conservative influence on school curriculums as voting blocks swing between conservatives and liberals?
The ping pong of history books that was dramatized in 1984 was also a reality as power shifted and people and principles went in and out of favor in Chinese and Russian totalitarian states. I imagine now we will see it here.
Did we think we were going to make China more democratic? We are the tail and they are the dog. We are becoming more like them every day. The high castes of the conservative party long for it. They see the setup of China's ruling class - the iron grip on history - the apparently successful stifling of dissent - and salivate.
If Thomas Jefferson can be "deemphasized" in American History and the separation of church and state can be erased from the history books, there is no longer any break on this. Freedom of ("liberal") speech is not far behind. Make no mistake, this is a bellweather for how much further our society can fall. It also suggests the way America could balkanize, as different regions of the country no longer share a common history.
Nice process they used (Score:4, Funny)
There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
Come on, NYT! Why on God's conservative, 10,000-year old earth would legislators consult so-called experts? F*cking New Yorkers have no common sense.
OK, now that my knee is done jerking... (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, now that my knee is done jerking and I've at least skimmed TFA, there are some interesting tidbits.
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
This might not be such a bad thing if it leads students to learn more. For example, in going over materials regarding the Panthers, they might learn that group exercised 2nd ammendment rights. It was the fear of Blacks with guns that led to some of the first (the first?) gun control measures in California. The law was, IIRC, signed into law by... Ronald Reagan!
I'd love to be there when a student raises his hand in class to ask the teacher why a Republican would sign gun control legislation, or presents this fact in an oral report about the Panthers.
Oh, and I wasn't taught this in school. I knew nothing of it until I moved to the Bay Area and learned more about the Panthers simply because I heard they got started in this area. That caused me to become curious and read up on their history. School certainly didn't teach it.
Hearing the adults argue about all this will probably teach the kids in ways that neither side anticipated.
Give primary sources (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, when we give editors power over the source, we end up with bias one way or the other. Rather than having people -tell- us about things, why not read them ourselves?
Woah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?
Why do you dislike these people so much?
Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?
If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?
Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?
Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?
Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?
Re:Woah! (Score:5, Informative)
I dislike them because:
For all their vaunted Christian morals and breastbeating on the importance of marriage, they have a higher divorce rate than the national average [associatedcontent.com], and even 50% higher than the atheists and agnostics they despise.
After they fail and ask God for forgiveness, they go right back to the hookers with whom they got caught (c.f., Jimmy Swaggart).
They embezzle millions from their mega-churches, which makes me think they're in it for the money more than the God (c.f., Jim Baker).
They extort millions from their followers by claiming God will kill them if the sheep don't pay up (c.f., Oral Roberts).
They spend their Christian lives doing everything they can to make homosexuals suffer, only to get busted offering to pay guys at truck stops to receive blowjobs from them (c.f., Bob Allen), or tapping their foot in an airport restroom (c.f., Larry Craig), or using their ministry's travel budget to fund methamphetamine and gay sex party weekends (c.f., Ted Haggard).
In other words, I dislike them because they're hypocrites who claim they're better than everyone else when in fact, they're usually worse, but they're very happy to try to force their morals on me through laws and textbooks.
Regarding economics... (Score:4, Interesting)
TFA says: In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes.
First of all, good going on Milton Friedman who was important in ending the draft in the US, co-author of one of the best economic histories of the Great Depression, and has been very influential around the world. Also good for adding F.A. Hayek, the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics.
But in truth, I was never taught anything about Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes in public school (in one of the best public school systems in the country). Did anyone on Slashdot learn about these guys in public school?
What you really need to know about Hayek and Keynes is in this rap video [youtube.com].
Karl Marx was mentioned, but in a more political way regarding the growth of Communism.
Texas BOE Removes Jefferson From History Standard (Score:5, Informative)
emphasis added
The Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards. And it's getting downright surreal. They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards. Seriously.
9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.
9:30 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with "the writings of") and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson's ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don't buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar's problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.
9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.
9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.
9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.
The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.
Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.
And the stupidity continues:
11:21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.
11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care.
11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of fundies these days *don't* like the above. As a fundie I used to say, and I have heard other fundies say, that parents sending their children to public school instead of homeschooling them were shirking their parental responsibility to "train up a child in the way he should go" (Proverbs 22.6a KJV).
I still would prefer to homeschool, if I could find materials that weren't written by and for FUNDIES! >_
-uso.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Informative)
80-90% of them quickly sink to -1 and all the rest get 5, which probably reflects a political polarization among moderators.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the hint in their user-profile, then look at your keyboard, reikk == troll
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
A group of people helping their fellow man without expectation of pay?
Men cooperating with men to fight the dangers that we face in our lives?
People paying for their service only when they want to and when they can afford it?
This is nothing but socialism, and should be stamped out at every available opportunity! I am raising a personal militia to take down these socialist bastards!
(Any support will be greatly appreciated.)
Re:Note To Self: (Score:4, Interesting)
It's pretty much common knowledge that Texas and is an educational wasteland: http://www.edgetech-us.com/Map/EduLvls.htm [edgetech-us.com]
Re:Note To Self: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can someone explain please (Score:5, Informative)
You could RTFA :) It contains several of the amendments that were passed.
To comment on a few:
Mr. Bradley ... won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the United States as well as the Japanese during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Yes, obviously that means it can't have been an issue of race...
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of the importance of personal responsibility for life choices in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything, Ms. Cargill said.
Wow - are they going to stop blaming images, films, porn, rock music and computer games for these things too?
Re:Can someone explain please (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me [nytimes.com]
There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement. One amendment states that the movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities. Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.
The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the “free-enterprise system” over others and the desirability of limited government.
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”
Throughout the standards, the conservatives have pushed to drop references to American “imperialism,” preferring to call it expansionism. “Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
Early in the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the war of northern aggression?
Re:Oh Noes! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny seeing how conservatives react to this, as if it's some sort of game of revenge.
You set up a strawman about Che Guevara and then argue in favor of revisionist history, as long as it supports your political views.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the people who print textbooks do not print a different version for every state. States with a large enough market, California and Texas get their own editions. Every other state can buy either the California or Texas editions.
Thus, these decisions in Texas will influence the education of a very large swath of the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
Re:Hey Dumbass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, last month there was a Facebook meme going around that MLK, Jr. was a Republican and isn't the GOP awesome for always championing liberties, etc., you get the idea.
The purveyors of this meme shut up rather quickly when it was pointed out that MLK was a liberal & as such would be unwelcome in the current GOP.
My mind threatens to break every time I try to understand where these people are coming from.
Re:Hahahahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, they removed the requirement [scienceblogs.com] that students study the impact of ideas from the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson's role as an Enlightenment scholar. Instead, they added Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, and removed the specific reference to the Enlightenment.
The original requirement was that students be able to:
It is now:
This is, quite frankly, a travesty. The first list had an actual thrust to it (you know, Enlightenment scholars in 1750+). This one is closer to just a list of philosophers that a council of morons thought sounded good - after all, Thomas Aquinas totally proved God exists! And John Calvin came up with Protestantism! Totally what every schoolchild in Texas (and by extension, a large part of the rest of the country) needs to know!
Re:Hahahahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
Ben was a regular at the salons of Paris and London; the organizer of one of these said that of the members, most were atheists, and the rest were still deciding. Franklin never came out and declared, but he probably didn't do so because he thought religion was useful rather than true. It is also interesting that at the time of foundation, about 18% of the American populace attended church regularly (Washington was one of those who gave up in disgust). This number has been growing since then, with a large spike during the Weslyan revival.
The ignorance of history is a major factor here. The founders lived in a world where the excesses of religion wielding political power was a very present thing. Thanks to the separation of church and state, we have been afforded the luxury of forgetting this. But any ideology that deals in absolutes, whether it be secular or religious, will evoke the absolute to disdain lesser goods--and when you think you hold the absolute Truth or Good, all other goods become worthless. The perfect is not just the enemy of the good, it is the mortal enemy of all goods. Life, liberty, happiness, charity, tolerance, knowledge, reason, and anything that is not held up as absolute will be cast aside, along with all who would defend them. Billions have died, and will die, for the idols of dogma. If religion has an evolutionary advantage, it is probably in strengthening ingroup solidarity at the expense of outgroup antagonism; effective in prehistory, catastrophic in a world of globalisation. I suspect that religions will, in this century, claim at least a billion victims, and make Stalin, Hitler, and Mao look like amateurs. In the aftermath, Richard Dawkins will sound positively mild and conciliatory.
There are almost as many Gods as there are believers, and the first thing you will discover when the state imposes religion is that the state's God is not your God. Europe is secular precisely because most European countries have entrenched state religions. The separation of church and state allowed religions to evolve and compete, and is one of the main reasons that America is so religious. If these clowns get their way, religion will be disgraced in America as well. They will do the secularists job for them. Joy is the reason, love is the method, but pain is the teacher.
The question is, how much pain can you stand?
One would think that the spectacle of Islamic Jihadism would be enough to remind us of what religion is when given free reign, but two hundred years of domesticated and tamed Christianity have encouraged the illusion that the creature has changed its nature. It hasn't. It's just biding its time...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do you think happened to Mr. Goatse?
He heard three words from The Funniest Joke in the World.
Re:Damn intarweb! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177 [aynrand.org] is good for general quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding religion. I like:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" - Thomas Jefferson
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine
Re:Damn intarweb! (Score:4, Interesting)
They're working on it. From TFA:
Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)
“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.
Re:Hahahahahah (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? "Jesus waterboards!" "Jesus saves - at CitiBank - so it's God's will to bail them out!" "Jesus healed the sick - so you don't need universal healthcare. You need to PRAY more."
BTW - Jesus never said a word against gays or lesbians. Not one. So do like Jesus would - approve same-sex marriage.
Re:Hahahahahah (Score:4, Informative)
Really? "Jesus waterboards!" "Jesus saves - at CitiBank - so it's God's will to bail them out!" "Jesus healed the sick - so you don't need universal healthcare. You need to PRAY more."
So while you're being effusive in pointing out the fallibility of the people you're satirizing, do you also deny that the ideas of the individual worth of every human in western culture was influenced by Jewish and Christian scriptures? If you're going to condemn the religious for their failings, do you also deny them credit for their contributions as well? Most of the things that progressives cherish... including the notion that healthcare is a right... arose from the work of people that were influenced by the Second Great Awakening. The people that came up with the idea of things like social insurance were not just religious, but deeply religious. The genesis of the whole progressive movement, somewhat ironically, came from how a generation of believers interpreted their scripture.
BTW - Jesus never said a word against gays or lesbians. Not one. So do like Jesus would - approve same-sex marriage.
How do you knew Jesus of Nazareth would approve of it? He never condemned slavery either. For that matter, he never said a cross word about jaywalking or smoking or grand theft auto. But he did say that he came to fulfill the scriptures, not invalidate them. And the Hebrew scriptures were pretty clear on the subject, wouldn't you say? He also told his apostles that would they declared on Earth would also hold in heaven. And they were pretty clear on the subject as well. Altogether, a theological argument for your position probably isn't your best bet for swaying people. And it's kind of hard to condemn Christianity on one hand, then then try to use it to justify your argument on the other.
Re:Hahahahahah (Score:4, Funny)
Because the English and the Dutch didn't want the Pilgrims, who were troublemaking Puritans.
Really, Europe owes us a debt because we took in most of their religious nutters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is suggesting anything of the kind. Every American history textbook that I have ever seen discusses the religious motivation of the Puritans and some other groups of colonists as well as the role of religion in other areas. Good histories, though, do not confuse the foundation of the US in the 1770s and 1780s with the Massachusetts of 1620. Even Massachusetts had acquired a different, less religious, more liberal, character by 1770.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The school board yesterday and prior has been discussing and weighing the topics and having open discussion.
It's not an open discussion if you think with a closed mind.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey here's something the "lazy democrats" tried to pass [tfninsider.org], but failed:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When a system is broken, like this ultra-politicized textbook process, its justifiable to give up on it. Some people take principled stands in life. Sometimes you just need to walk away from a game that's impossible to win.
Id also walk out if a room full of fundies told me that the best compromise is "making sure to list evolution as an untested theory full of flaws and we'll consider mentioning that man and dinosaurs didnt live together, but we're not budging on Christian values forming America."
Its these
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Informative)
They did. They walked out of the meeting in protest, because they are in the minority on the board. Would you prefer they stay in the meeting and still lose the vote?
Instead, they created a big enough fuss to gain a lot of media attention, and the conservative board members are actually having electoral troubles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again, what would you prefer they have done?
The Conservatives were going to have 11 'yes' votes. The liberals were going to have less than 11 'no' votes. The liberals have been arguing against this for about a year now.
What, exactly, should they have done?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every side is entitled to try and promote their viewpoint. To let them get a vote like that by leaving is certainly an emotional statement but completely lacks the realization that; the vote was held, the tally counted, and voluntary absent to make a statement still means factual defeat.
There are 15 members of the board. All 15 voted. All 15 votes were counted. Exactly what is your point?
On top of that, when you have a majority of votes already publicly declared, the other side has lost. The anonymous coward OP is just spewing FUD because it is obvious that uninformed and biased non-educators have done something publicly shamming to us all and wants to defend them.
For Gods sake, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the revolution. You know h
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
It is one thing to disagree with a belief or have a political view and want to support it. It is another thing entirely to re-write history with absolutely no regard for the truth. This is simply shameful.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:4, Funny)
I thought that Jefferson and the other founding fathers were in favor of acceleration of independence not deceleration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To clarify the AC's point below mine, Texas' market for textbooks is large enough that publishers write the textbooks to Texas standards and then sell them nationwide. West Virginia's (or South Carolina's, or Maine's, or Illinois') standards don't get considered.
Re:digital localisation (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Family Guy [mojvideo.com] clip.