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?"
Orwell Gets it Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
This debate is Ridiculous! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey Dumbass... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Really? (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.
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:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
In God We Trust... but not with much.
Re:Meh (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:Hey Dumbass... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Meh (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
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:Hey Dumbass... (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: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:Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a stand or shut up.
I hold every single person responsible if they turn a blind eye or stay silent when their principles are trampled.
If possible, even more so, if it's their job to stand and be counted on issues they have been elected to represent.
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.
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?
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: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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can someone explain please (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the war of northern aggression?
Re:Anonymous Coward (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:Can someone explain please (Score:1, Insightful)
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”
I fail to see anything wrong with that.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,
Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson). Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g. Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)
while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership,
Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War. Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader. The same could be said for Robert E. Lee.
“Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc). It also had a significant social impact. I fail to see a problem here (although it would be nice if they also learn classical music). inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars. Every leader is expected to start at least one good war. Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president (e.g. Gulf War, Kosovo War, Clinton’s bombing campaigns). The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn’t win his wars.
I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war? Probably not. Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion – not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).
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.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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: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:Damn intarweb! (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh. Apparently they're actually good for something.
Re:What? (Score:1, Insightful)
So I should support the influence of your church in public life because... it's the only thing that keeps me from having to deal with somebody else's church?
You thumpers pretty much have it all figured out, don't you.
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: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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you point me to where the OP suggests "cutting every mention of God out of your history books"? Thanks.
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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked, Texas was ranked 49th out of 50 in education among states.
I guess this explains why.
It might be time to require evangelical christianity to bear a warning label as possibly harmful to children.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the hint in their user-profile, then look at your keyboard, reikk == troll
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: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:"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:Hahahahahah (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:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (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 to be president.
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: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:BACKLASH against unchecked liberalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, good luck with that. I think you vastly overestimate your ability to remake the Republican party (and vastly underestimate the space you're sharing in your traditional coalition with social conservatives), but we'll see what the next ten years bring. If you actually succeeded as you outline above, it sounds like it would be pretty good--but this isn't a new philosophy, and it has its own history of failing in practice. Everyone thinks every entitlement should go--except their favorite. The enduring image of tea partiers I have is an old lady being interviewed, and saying she wants the government to keep its hand off her Medicare. The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.
As an aside, if you'd started with something this calm and thoughtful, rather than the snotty, liberal bashing you began with, you might get more reasonable discussions.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why Texas? (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt CA is in a huge financial hole due to Conservatives.
Well. You don't understand our politics very well, then.
A huge chunk of Calfornia's mandatory spending (more than half, if I am to understand correctly) comes from the Voter Initiative system, which is by direct democracy and cannot be over ruled by the governor or the legislature.
One of the problems that California faces is that one of its Propositions, Proposition 13, which is famous for freezing property taxes, does a wee bit more than that. It also basically makes raising revenue through alternative mechanisms politically impractical. Prop 13 was the darling of the Right, as you might guess. So yes, conservatives are, in part, to blame for California's financial problems. The rest of it (the spending part) is to be blamed squarely on the voting public, not the politicians.
C//
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: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:Render unto Cesar. (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that a hundredth of one percent of American Christians, or a thousandth of one percent of them? I think probably the latter.
Re:It's about time (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly! I've been saying stuff like this for years.
You don't like the condition of the roads in your area?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, buy some construction equipment, put on a hard hat and start paving.
You don't like that the your area isn't as safe as it could be?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, buy some guns (or sack of doorknobs), set up a jail, and start serving justice.
You don't like that you drinking water is unsafe?
Get together with your neighbors, have a bake sale to raise money, put on a hard hat to build a waster water treatment center and then starting cleaning our water.
And the list goes on and on.
I don't understand why we pay taxes when it is so obvious that the alternative of a system of private voluntary organizations seems so straight forward and easy to implement. All you have to do is get together with neighbors and have fund raisers! My god, what could be simpler???!!!
PS - I like peanut butter chocolate brownies.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow - modded "Flamebait". Really? Seems pretty insightful to me. Amazing how many people don't get this.
It doesn't really matter what you think about the founders when viewed through the prism of today's social norms - the point is that history should be taught as it actually happened, not revised according to some new standard of belief.
Conservative? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism!"
That's a pretty disingenuous argument, and assumes that if you support any level of public funding for something, that you should support all levels. Because I find my post office and fire department necessary in no way means that I find government ownership of banks, automakers, and medicine necessary. The founders wanted things like a postal service, and at the same time said "the government that governs best is that which governs least". Kind of hard to govern least if the government pays for everything, no?
"e really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism."
The dichotomy isn't false, and is in fact, pretty stark.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Britain fell sucker to the whole "we can use technology to assist the police" thing and save money.
The US fell into the same trap.
So they both think that what's needed is more tech ....
What's really needed is stronger privacy laws and more beat cops working WITH the community, not "policing it."
Quite true. If more of the cops were beat soundly by their community, they wouldn't be so quick to fuck with people.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
I've lived in areas with so-called volunteer fire departments and every single one depends on a big-town fire department that is paid for with tax dollars to come to their assistance for anything really serious. And often the "volunteer" departments will have a couple of paid firemen.
Re:Why Texas? (Score:3, 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."
True, and yet absolutely meaningless. Kansas doesn't have a San Francisco or Los Angeles. California's population has a much heavier urban concentration than either of those states, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population. It doesn't matter if large rural areas in California are conservative when their biggest cities with the bulk of the state's population is leftist. California is a liberal state because California liberals have King Numbers on their side. The conservatives do not.
Funny you should mention New York, as a NYC area legislator pressed to have the NYC area secede from the rest of the state. They were too conservative for his tastes. And he's right in that if you take NYC away, NY suddenly becomes a purple state that's up for grabs every election.
Re:Why Texas? (Score:3, Insightful)
NEWSFLASH: Conservative tool interprets someone else's statement so he can feel like a victim, engage in circle-jerk with other conservative victims.
You've got nothing on my brother-in-law, chum. I've seen this before.
Re:Woah! (Score:1, Insightful)
Just which morals are being forced on you?
Are you being required to pray?
Have you been rousted from your house in the middle of the night because of homosexual conduct?
Were you forced to get a divorce?
Did they deny you cult members because they all signed up with Oral Roberts first?
Wow, you're just a victim.
Re:It was the answer to an important question. (Score:2, Insightful)
" 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.
"
Funny, conservatives... including religious conservatives... say the same thing about liberals. "They just take orders from their leaders". Not only is that silly, but GOP strategists probably hope that you really believe that, and that you trumpet it loudly. It makes their jobs much easier when its time to try and motivate voters.
They're not mindless, not in any way. Sounds like you're irked because, if anything, they are more organized and dedicated that you'd like. But if you can't counter their efforts with your own, then that's your problem, not theirs.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Yet another prejudiced remark/insult (stereotyping based upon their group, rather than as individuals)."
They don't act or vote as individuals. The prejudice is completely deserved as anyone who is not a religionist can easily see, and as anyone who IS a religionist (and thus not capable of considering anything that conflicts with their supersititious ideal) can never see.
Re:Woah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Any "Christian" who says they are better than a non-Christian isn't a Christian. The fundamental divergence between Judaism and Christianity is that Christians believe that following moral laws doesn't save you. Even St Paul who had a massive influence on early Christianity decried himself as the worst of all sinners. Everyone is a sinner, any Christian who says they aren't or holds themselves as being morally superior is even further from God than Richard Dawkins.
The reason for the massive screw ups in American "Christianity" is because people want to be superior and giving them a way to work towards it (and constantly fail because they are sinners) is a great way to extract lots of money from them. L. Ron. Hubbard probably would have never figured this out if he had been born in another country.
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...
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:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:2, Insightful)
He kind of meant it metaphorically.
What he really meant was stuff like the Che T-shirt.
Guevara was a serial killer. It's kinda like wearing a Jeffery Dalhmer t-shirt.
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:What? (Score:2, Insightful)
Your knowledge of history is shockingly bad.
NAZI Ideology was a twisted mix of paganism and Norse mythology (with a few other dazzling bits tossed-in just to keep it confusing, as all cults do), but it was arising in the native land of Martin Luther, so Hitler and his party (decidedly non-Christian) had a policy of gradually absorbing the Christian holidays and traditions (like Christmas and Easter) and secularizing them in a slow conversion of the public. Christmas, for example, was being slowly shifted from a Christ-centered holiday to a patriotic and family-oriented holiday (there are surviving examples of the official party documents outlining all of this which you could easily study if you had any intellectual curiosity). This is well documented in their own words and you can study it in many archives. Hitler was actually introduced as God by his propagandist on several occasions (no actual Christian would ever allow his associates to introduce him this way). Much of the population was indeed culturally "Christian", but a much smaller portion of the population were seriously, personally Christian. The serious Christians were a threat to the Reich and some paid with their lives. As long as a significant portion of his population was culturally Christian, it suited Hitler to use those portions he could control or co-opt, but the plan was in place to eliminate the Christian faith in Germany and replace it with a quasi-religious racial cult of personality and devotion to the state.
Oh, and universal healthcare is indeed socialist. Healthcare requires the work of doctors, nurses, people who make drugs and medical devices etc. Somebody must pay those people to work, pay for the raw materials, processed materials, energy used, etc. You could provide all that for free, at the point of a gun.... or you could force other people to pay those costs, again, at the point of a gun. Taxation is at the point of a gun (if you doubt it, I dare you to not pay your taxes, and then resist when the authorities show-up to take your home away... at some point in the process, a government employee will show up and aim a gun at you. Most of us hand over the tax payments long before the guns are pointed (highly recommended)) Because it involves a finite supply of resources, government-enforced "universal healthcare" always ends-up in government control (direct or indirect) of the means of production and government control of resource allocation.
"healthcare" is not a "right" and is likely to only be "universal" when resources are unlimited. You cannot have a "right" to the fruit of another person's labor, just as nobody else as a "right" to grab the results of your labor. This is why every socialist muckraker always promises universal healthcare; it is the easiest way to trick middle class people into letting the socialist camel's nose under the tent.
Re:Hey Dumbass... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the main problem with right-wingers these days. You idiots live in a fantasy world.
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.
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Is that a hundredth of one percent of American Christians, or a thousandth of one percent of them? I think probably the latter.
It doesn't matter how many there are, what matters is that there are some in the US who like the Taliban would dictate to everyone how they will live, even when the people are not harming anyone else.
Falcon
Re:Brother Glitch23 (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll lay three-to-one odds that the GP was influenced by Skousen's "5,000 Year Leap," most likely as promoted by Glenn Beck. Christians and those interested in Constitutional doctrine and American history need to be aware of this poisonous little book, because it's influencing a LOT of people who haven't taken the time to actually read our country's founding documents. Among other places, it's getting passed around and discussed by a great number of Tea Party groups, and the lack of correction therein from members who ought to know better (lawyers, educators) is frightening. They're using it to fuel blind outrage, and it's working.
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:Render unto Cesar. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's worse than that-- many Christians believe that they can scoff at government critics when their guy is in power (e.g., Reagan and Bush 43), but they are among the first to protest and invoke fire and brimstone sermons about how they're doomed when a Democrat is elected. In other words, it's a convenient use of Romans 13, where Paul tells the church to obey the government in power. In this case they value the Republican alliance between Christian evangelicals and conservatives more than they claim to value the Bible's teachings.
There's tons of other examples, such as the parallels between the Pharisees' treatment of lepers and the treatment of homosexuals and minorities by today's church, as well as foaming at the mouth over abortions when they say or do nothing about the mother's health or the children's poverty, or insisting on no government assistance to the less fortunate when they spend millions on mega-churches rather than their communities. I wouldn't be surprised that there were just as many preachers shouting "Amen!" as those who called for a boycott when Glenn Beck called to Christians to abandon social justice efforts.