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?"
Hahahahahah (Score:2, Interesting)
had the founding fathers of usa, each of whom were intellectuals following the age of enlightenment principles and age of reason heard this 'role of christianity in founding of usa', im sure they would laugh their asses out. but probably franklin would just prefer to open windows on both ends of the long hall in his mansion, and just sit in the middle on a stool naked, as he sometimes preferred to do.
ill leave to you, finding which of your founding fathers was the one who said 'religion is but a useful tool to control the masses'. and if you dont know what i was talking about benji, you have loooooong reading to do.
Why Texas? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone explain please (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't know much about this issue. Can someone who does tell me what the conservatives wanted in the books, what the liberals wanted in the books, and what actually happened? All I saw on the news was someone use the race card against the conservatives, which doesn't speak well of either side to me.
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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.
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.
Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, the joys of willful ignorance.
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:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anonymous Coward (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: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.
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?
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.
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.
Re:It was the answer to an important question. (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush I barely won against Dukakis.
48,886,597 Bush to 41,809,476. 426 electoral votes to 111. That's "barely won" to you? It was one of the most lopsided victories in electoral history.
In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian.
Read my lips, you can't ignore a key principle that you campaign on, that your base vehemently supports, and maintain the base's happiness, especially when you have a well funded third party spearheading a campaign directly on that point. Bush promised not to raise taxes and did anyway, which prompted fiscal conservatives to move to Perot. That provided the opportunity for Clinton take the victory and, he too, famously went after Bush on "the economy, stupid."
Re:Why Texas? (Score:2, Interesting)
Text Books Useless Anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
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:BACKLASH against unchecked liberalism (Score:1, Interesting)
Libertarian wing, thank you for clarifying. The Libertarian Party, proper, is staffed with kooks, (with Ron Paul types, I agree.)
Those of us eating the Republican Party alive are currently focused on getting candidates elected that will deliver the following three things, in order:
1) Draconian spending cuts - balanced budgets aren't enough, start paying debts. No such thing as "non-discretionary"
2) Drastic tax cuts - bet on the private sector to pull you out of recession
3) Handle defense. Maybe increase, maybe decrease - but just take the job seriously
Some people I've dealt with put #3 before #2. If that's all we disagree about, I'm happy. Collectively, we have no social agenda, we're going Big Tent style to win big and focusing primarily on finances.
I personally don't cry foul about the notion of transfer programs and government services getting the axe. The main reason why I think this is my opinion that Big Government is very poor at service delivery and represents a poor investment. It is also my opinion that Big Government hopelessly twists our economy (see: our suicidal monetary policy, effects of Medicare/Medicaid/gov't regulation on the medical industry, our schizophrenic tax system, etc.)
I don't ascribe to the notion that "socialist/big/progressive government hasn't been done right, yet" as an explanation for why those styles of government ultimately collapse of their own weight. It's my contention that Big Government is impossible to get right: human nature and power-hungry individuals in the system always prevent any real good from getting done. I know there is PROMISE in big government, but the follow-through always falls way short of the promise.
I believe this is why the American style of government was originally structured the way it was, having a weak central government and strong states. The centralized power is attractive, but doesn't scale well. I know at the state and local level, I have a better chance at wringing the responsible party's neck when I'm not happy. When power rests with nameless bureaucrats, then I have no neck to wring.
Go ahead and label me "mean" or "cruel" or whatever, in my opinion the Big Government model does not work and takes too much of our freedoms, economic and otherwise. I say, transfer power to local/state governments and try to vote yourself gifts there, if you'd like - I'll be sure to fight you or move somewhere else that values personal responsibility and freedom.
Put another way: living in the world, by and large, sucks. It sucks less here in the States because we value (or at least USED to value) freedom and liberty and justice. By and large, people are good natured and healthy and can take care of themselves, so leave them alone. A reduction of my freedom on promises of even less suckyness doesn't square in my mind with history - in fact, itsatrap.
I am not advocating anarchy and no government and no regulation and no government spending, I'm just looking for a vast rollback of those things.
Going meta on this discussion for a moment. It is at this point is when liberal friends of mine always pull out the sob stories about someone who needs big gov't to save them (or they pull out the personal insults to try to get their way.) I've always felt this was just ivory tower brow-beating and lacked much substance. Anyhow, sorry to diverge there.
kthxbye
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:Regarding economics... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the school district that my charter school was part of (regarded as one of the best school districts in my area), all high school students had to take a one-semester economics course. I learned about Adam Smith, communism, and Keynesian economics in that class (I also learned about Marxism from a philosophy elective that I took that same semester), as well as mercantilism. We even learned about supply-side economics, too. Interestingly enough, my economics teacher was the wife of a businessman who was running for congress as a Republican that semester (he ended up losing, though; he was running in a place in California where the Democrat usually gets elected by a wide margin). We did not learn about Chicago School or Austrian School economics, but my textbook did have sections featuring Milton Friedman and Walter Williams. I learned about the Chicago School and about the Austrian School from reading Slashdot postings from libertarians and by subsequently reading books and articles from Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and other similar economists.
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Re:Why Texas? (Score:2, Interesting)
immigration, you get poor white trash moving from kentucky/tennessee/alabama etc, every so often. They bring their culture with them. Happened in Illinois during the great depression, which sent hordes of sharecroppers (including my Father's grandparents and mother) up north for better lives where they weren't essentially working for whatever "Judge" or "Colonel" (and their close relatives) that owned the entire county. And again in the early 70's and in the late 90's early 2000's. Then in return, our rich folks move south for the winter weather, at least temporarily. So we get poor white trash with no money and they get our folks with money for roughtly 3 or 4 months of the year.
And the culture thing....wow. They're so fucking loud. "Scraggly goattee guy with the nascar cap" screams at "Fat girlfriend who looks a bit native american" to get his smokes, and she screams at lher little girl who looks biracial to not run around, while the girlfriends even fatter mother is screaming that she needs smokes too while carrying her youngest child which is younger than her daughters daughter. And they're all wearing socks with sandals/crocs in the middle of an Illinois winter. It's the southerners that brought that up north. Scraggly goattee guy often has Klan symbos on the vehicle and has a job as a welder/working on cars/truck driver.
They bring their churches with them too, once enough of them are in an area they get some old building like an old fertilizer or lawn equipment dealership and put a cross on it. My dad was raised in a church that was primarily southern immigrants and he told me that they taught them all sorts of bigoted stuff that he had to unlearn as the years went by. They weren't happy when he stopped going and were even unhappier when he married my mom, who was a Presbyterian. Wanna know what old time southern evangelicals call Presbyterians? Presbyjewians It was also a church where playing cards was fine, but using dice for any reason was the devil's thing, so they had to play monopoly with a special spinner. A similar church in the same town, also comprised of southern immigrants had the exact opposite rules, no cards, but dice were okay.
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.
healthcare debate (Score:3, Interesting)
"With affordable health care, the Honorable Gentleman Senator of Michigan could be able to remove that hairy wart from his ass."
There's one thing I noticed in the health care debate, none of the Democrats proposed voters get the same health care as congress gets. Perhaps that's because they know it will bankrupt the nation.
Falcon
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe in God, but I'm no fundamentalist crackpot.
Even their basic premise defies logic. God supposedly loves us unconditionally, BUT you have to be Christian and believe in God otherwise you're doomed. And you can't be gay. So much for unconditional. (I love you but your soul has to burn in hell forever, sorry. Nothing I can do - them's the rules. Please file an appeal with Satan when you see him).
The concept that God is perfect, but created imperfect beings with sin and then expect perfection is just ridiculous. What is he really Loki the Viking trickster God? Or maybe a bitter software manager from another reality?
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:Render unto Cesar. (Score:2, Interesting)
More like about 20%-30% of American Christians. It certainly describes *all* of the fundie nutjobs I had the misfortune of growing up around. Maybe it's about one hundredth of a percent of Christians in *civilized* parts of the US, but in the Deep South, it's about 80%-90% of Christians. They really are that crazy. I know. I grew up there. If you are anything other than a fundie nutjob, they will call you a "practicing Satanist" as various Catholic, Hindu and Atheist friends of mine were called.
Re:OXYMORON ALERT (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It was the answer to an important question. (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not mindless, not in any way.
They literally believe that if the Bible said Noah put "two of each kind" on a boat, then it happened. Now, I'm sorry, but once you've started digesting that as truth, there's not much chance of me introducing logic into the equation. Have you ever tried arguing with people who believe that they are the only ones who know the will of God? There's no way to put rational thought between the voices in their brain and their brain. It's like talking to a conspiracy theorist who "knows" the Apollo was faked. Every piece of evidence will be discarded in order to save their worldview.
Sounds like you're irked because, if anything, they are more organized and dedicated that you'd like.
I hold no particular attachment to the incidental place of my birth. If the knowledge fearing wing of the Tea Party does manage to dismantle the foundations of the Enlightenment that we've all benefited from, I have the will and the means to leave, without any regrets - I'm actually touring Central America this summer. There are lots of poorer places in the world, but very few that hold ignorance in such high esteem.
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:What? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Render unto Cesar. (Score:1, Interesting)
I've seen this argument quite a lot lately, but one thing bothers me - if it irks you so much, why don't you start voting against taxes and let them go adrift? Be realistic - most of those dollars go to programs, like Medicare, Social Security, and welfare, that are championed by the coasties.
FALSE [warresisters.org]. Most of it goes to military spending and military pensions. Less than one third is spent on social services, which is not "most" no matter how you slice it. You are a liar.