Conservative Textbook Curriculum Passes Final Vote In Texas 895
suraj.sun sends in a followup to a story we've been following about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their state's textbooks. From the Dallas Morning News:
"In a landmark move that will shape the future education of millions of Texas schoolchildren, the State Board of Education on Friday approved new curriculum standards for US history and other social studies courses that reflect a more conservative tone than in the past. Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade. Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country. Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a conservative. My real problem with this is that a strong central government (Texas) is making decisions that should be made at the local level.
As such, having the DOE take control of educational standards is not a good solution. There's currently a Democrat in the White House, but how would you feel if a Republican took control and shoved Texas style standards through the DOE, having nation wide effect?
These are decisions that should be made by communities and teachers, not bureaucrats.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:4, Interesting)
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
Maybe the best option is to have all of federal, state and local requirements, and to ensure that teaching to the federal/state standards requires no more than 1/3rd the total time for each.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them?
No.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention their are parts of Africa that would be favorable to agriculture and could sustain the local and the surrounding populations but there is almost no commercial farming because we dump cheap food stuffs produced here with the aide of heavy economic subsidies. It makes it impossible for the local people to compete. Agriculture is an important component of almost any economy. Our preventing it by dumping food is actually keeping many parts of Africa poor.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them?
I'll tell you what I told my ultra-religious grandmother. Don't set a precedent that you wouldn't want to follow when you aren't in power. Think having Christian laws is a good idea? What happens when you lose the majority and Muslims get a chance to write their own.
As much as you might believe that what you know is best for everyone, you would be wrong. Who are you to decide what is best for a community? Who are they to decide what is best for your community? The best laws are those that allow the most local form of governance possible and ensure that those communities coexist peacefully and equitably.
So in short, no.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, on the condition that the nation as a whole doesn't have to help ameliorate the consequences of Kansas's and Texas's self-imposed ignorance, such as unemployment, infrastructure failures, and out-migration of educated and productive citizens.
If the consequences will become our problem, we've got a right to impose some standards in the name of prevention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The progressive side of the argument says: look at what happens in Kansas. Don't we have a responsibility to protect those children from what their community wants to teach them? Their community is going to render them unemployable and dirt poor.
As a scientist who went to a Kansas high school during the controversy you're probably referring to, I have to say the biggest effect is other scientists asking if they taught me evolution in high school (they did, but that's beside the point). For most scientists, high school did nothing to encourage and interest in science regardless of a liberal/conservative bias.
If the idiots on the school board decide not to require the teaching of evolution, your teacher in the classroom is probably going to teach it
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the superior educational system in Germany has helped them a lot. They are the number one exporter of manufactured goods. And they're able to make all these superior manufactured goods despite the fact that they are among the most labor-friendly societies in the world. Labor unions in Germany are much stronger than here in the US and take a greater role in management than their US counterparts. A single union, the German Confederation of Trade Unions, organizes 25% of all German workers. Even though they only have open shops in Germany, union membership is higher than in the US.
Meanwhile, here in the US, we're destroying labor unions and hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs.
It seems that Germany's superior educational system (which is government-funded through university by the way) has helped them a lot. You'd think that as America falls further and further behind the rest of the world in areas such as health care, education, legalized marijuana that there would be more of an effort to learn something from other countries. Instead, some of us (Texas, for example) seem intent on making our society dumber.
The most important thing to note is that this decision by the Texas School Board will effect the textbooks in many other states. Yet Texas ranks 49th out of the 50 states in education. Instead of trying to raise the standards to match the states that are the most successful in education students, we're intent on lowering our standards to match the states that are the worst.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you saying Germans are slaves?
A lot of Americans would love to have German working conditions, time off, vacation, pensions, etc etc.
I love people who talk about "European Socialism is Slavery" and then point to places like Germany or Sweden or Belgium.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Board member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, another social conservative, opened Friday's board meeting with an invocation that referred to the U.S. and its history as a "Christian land governed by Christian principles."
"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses," she said.
Enough said. Please take your trolling elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
California is much larger than Texas in terms of education spending. Florida isn't far behind. You'll be surprised to learn that both of these states have school boards of their own that are highly unlikely to capitulate to the demands or agendas of Texas. Publishers are not so foolish as to believe they are going to sell whatever material TX comes up with in CA or elsewhere just because TX says so. In fact they will, in all likelihood, delight in the opportunity to reject and ridicule it. You may rest
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Funny)
The Department of Energy?
Heathen, energy is a myth. It is just a manifestation of God's blessings bestowed upon us. It is he who makes the sun shine, plants grow (the conversion from solar to chemical is one of His miracles, falsely attributed to photosynthesis by sinners). Repent sinner.
At least that was what my textbook told me.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, no one "invents" anything, we're given God's Divine Inspiration and only through His Will do we have the power to create anything. The same inspiration that makes the grass grow, babies born, and blesses the Great State of Texas everyday.
At least that's what my Texas history book sent to me from the future told me.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Reality has a liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
Show me a textbook that even slightly implies that Nixon started Vietnam. Please. Perhaps you meant ended.
Goldwater is barely worth studying (much more important things occurred during that era, like civil rights) and the Contract with America, while important, has yet to be a part of history long enough to be properly evaluated. Detailed modern history is usually reserved for higher education.
Your argument that we have less reason to trust the federal government than the state of Texas with our educational criteria is absurd. How ironic that you used Orwell, a socialist, to defend this absurd claim. Perhaps if the state of Texas wasn't making it mandatory for their textbooks to print lies then you would have a point, but there has never been any indication that the federal government, if they did control academic curriculum, would utilize it to for propaganda. You trust the Texas Board of Education more than the federal government because you fear the feds might do what the TBE is doing?
Orwell is probably rolling in his grave over how grossly misunderstood 1984 is. The guy wasn't a libertarian, he wasn't anti-federal government. If anything, he'd be critical of the double-speak the TBE is trying to implement into their textbooks. To say this nation was founded as a theocracy is a lie. To deny the intentional boundary our founding fathers formed between church and state is to lie. This crazy brand of Christianity these evangelicals practice didn't even exist when this country was founded and when Thomas Jefferson used the word "God" he never meant "the Judeo-Christian God."
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thomas Jefferson was ALMOST EXCLUDED. That's not conservative. That's fucking nuts.
Anyone who followed this sad tale from beginning to end would have their jaws dropping about the ludicrous shit that went on. Not only were the people involved incredibly biased, but they WERE NOT EVEN EXPERTS IN THE MATERIAL THEY WERE REVIEWING. Contract with America vs. Civil Rights Movement? Really?
This had nothing to do with proper education and everything to do with trying to push an agenda. Politics at its most revolting.
Now when people ask me why I'm homeschooling I have a prominent example why public schools are failing. Thanks Texas.
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When did progress... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When did progress... (Score:5, Informative)
Little by little the United States of America is becoming the Corporate Socialist States of Jesus.
"In God We Trust" did not show up on United States currency until around the time of the Civil War and was not officially a motto on the currency until 1956.
Sadly there is a large segment of the population that believe the United States is a Christian nation because of things like "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust" but they never actually studied any real history and don't realize those statements are in our government because they put them there not the people who formed this nation.
Re:When did progress... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I recall correctly, the pre-Cold War version is:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I'm still not a fan of making children repeat loyalty oaths as a kind of mantra to begin every (school) day, no matter what the words are.
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Progress toward what though?
All I've seen from self defined progressives is a progressive trend to authoritarianism. The same is true for religious conservatives.
It is a shame that people don't see that both want what they feel is best for you. And it's a damned shame that neither want to give you a choice in the matter.
When the progression is toward authority. It isn't surprising when people treat it as a dirty word.
Re:When did progress... (Score:5, Insightful)
It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing.
USA fear of anything "social" causes few americans to understand there is a very wide gap between fascism/communism and what americans consider normal.
Most of the world has watched with puzzlement as many american's protested (and continue to protest) against a medical healthcare system even less social than what most democratic countries have been running succesfully for decades.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sort of missed the point and got the problem without realizing it altogether.
The US is right learning compared to the rest of the civilized world- however, when you look at the strengths of the US, you will find that position is mostly why we have so much to offer the rest of the world. Take Europe for instance, the more left they run, the less productive the seem to be. By productive, I mean in areas like innovation and such. They socialized medical care and have largely been playing catchup in innovat
Care to support your assertion with facts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why the right in the US screams "socialism" when they don't like something. It also causes sufficient cognitive dissonance that you can convince these people that someone can be both a socialist and a fascist.
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
What the fuck have you been smoking? If you are in France you get 30 days of holiday per year, free healthcare, a longer life-expectancy, and a better quality of living. You are also less likely to be shot, less likely to have to shoot someone, and more likely to drive a much better car to a much better job.
But please - keep jerking yourself off over your flag. It'll definitely work.
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "free" anything. Everything has a price. If you are to diminish "free" so that no one anywhere paid anything for it, then "free" has no meaning at all. Since there's no point in having a word with no meaning, I have to believe you to be incorrect. It is "free" in the sense that you don't pay for it when you get it.
in France they pay for it as well as for other social services through taxes.
I pay more in the US to cover a few people as they pay in France to cover everyone. It may not be your "free" but it is cheaper and with better cover than the US. By far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd hardly call our current crop of Dems "progressive" by any means, and it seems to me that both the Democrats and Republicans are getting a little too friendly with fascism these days. Both the right and the left are getting fed up with their parties.
The obvious solution is proportional representation, but we're too lazy to implement it. We've got the politicians we deserve.
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Tea Party supporters are
I apologize. I should have been clearer when I referred to the "public face of the tea party". Obviously, that can be interpreted to mean the caricatures of bigoted, pidgin English bearing sign wielders you see all the time. While such parasites (who hang on to the movement and make a mockery of it) are a huge concern, that was not what I was referring to.
My idea of the "public face of the tea party" is rabid, unintelligent buffoons like Palin, Beck, Bachmann and that breed of blowhards. In other words, the tea party's most prominent leaders. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the rank and file of the party is exactly as you describe. It is a pity that the lower echelon nobodies in the GOP have latched onto this (originally) grassroots movement and have completely sacrificed it just to ensure they stay in power.
As long as the loyal cadre of its supporters continue to let it be hijacked by the very few (but very prominent) bigots that are trying to break away from the GOP and build their own little toy power base, the tea party's stated manifesto and philosophy remains meaningless to me. With these clowns (again, referring to their leaders and the candidates they have fielded) in power, it's just business as usual - with a lot more rhetoric and lot less action than we have now.
If the tea party is serious about wanting to break away from dirty politics and truly want change, they have to field a leadership that's better than the incumbents. So far, it's been the exact opposite.
In fact, if their core is as educated and wealthy as you say they are, I am even more baffled at the simians they have chosen as their leaders (and hence their 'public face'). And as we all know, no matter how noble the grassroots supporters, it is their front man in congress or the white house who determines what really happens. As a voter, I will be voting (or not) for the candidates they field and as long as someone like Palin continues to be their poster child for what they stand for, I will be happy to take them at their word and do everything in my power to ensure that they remain an irrelevant minority in the political process.
If they wise up and distance themselves from the prominent assholes that are riding them for their own gain, I will be more than happy to check out their manifesto and even sign on if I find it acceptable. Until then, as a person concerned with consequences more than intentions, any "Contracts from America" are irrelevant. Call it a philosophical boycott if you will. You want the people to listen to you and take you seriously? Then top acting like battered spouses and develop at least a modicum of control within your own party - above all, don't let the old school leaders dominate the new one. Exercise some control over who your leaders are instead of just surrendering your leadership to the first media blowhard or failed politician that comes your way. Use the Ron Pauls - tell the Palins and Bachmanns to GTFO.
It is starting to look as if this might actually happen so I'm [very cautiously] hopeful [for example, THIS [dailypaul.com] and THAT [dailypaul.com]]. Perhaps Rand Paul's victory may signal a shift that the idiots are no longer welcome in the Tea Party, and wouldn't that be awesome?
Re:When did progress... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which explains why Christian Conservatives would prefer to diminish the role of Thomas Jefferson as he seems to support this so called "soft anarchy".
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810 [monticello.org]
Re:When did progress... (Score:4, Informative)
That's not at all an argument in favor of the "living document" mode of legal interpretation. It's an argument in favor of amending and updating the laws with the times, which is certainly what we should be doing. The idea of a "living [legal] document" that can mean a different thing now than it did 200 years ago without amendment is absurd, since it does, in fact, mean that we can interpret the laws however we please. As everyone knows, however, when every interpretation is true, none is true. Good progressives should step away from legal nihilism and simply advocate rewriting laws when we need to.
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So because some other schools, most of which we have no control over what so ever, engage in blatant and destructive propaganda... we should let these schools over which we DO have control engage in blatant and destructive propaganda as well?
In any event, that's not the issue being discussed, making it irrelevant information, making your entire point a meaningless digression.
I'll bet you're one of those people who says "well if a terrorist captures an American, they'll torture and brutally execute them, so
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
By the way, wasn't there someone who recently claimed that it was 72 raisins? Well, food was scarce in those times - people had much lower standards for heaven/paradise back in those days. Pluck a common dude out from those times and put him in the worst ghetto in the US and he'll think he was in paradise =p
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Time to stop relying on Texas... (Score:5, Funny)
Reality has a progressive bias.
For some reason, I read that as "Reality has a progress bar".
I guess it's still loading in some places.
I for one (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the new American Taliban.
Finally they are no longer pretending to be like the rest of us.
Re:I for one (Score:4, Insightful)
But by the same token neither do these people.
With respect, writing out people who are inconvenient to your religious leanings and omitting large chunks of well established and documented history is a very dangerous path to go down.
Re:I for one (Score:5, Insightful)
"rewriting history" is just accusation against someone that doesn't believe your incorrect version of history.
"Rewriting history" means just that. The objection is they are changing what is taught as history to be something other than what the documents and supporting evidence that we have shows it to be, in favor of what non-experts who haven't done any research but do have a political agenda want it to be.
The federal government doesn't get to say what history is, neither do you.
Both the federal and state governments are forbidden from promoting any specific religion and with very good reason. If you bothered to read the writings of the founding fathers you'd see some excellent explanations as to why this is the case. Now you have a state government trying to convince the citizenry that is not the case, using tax dollars; which is likely illegal under the exact provision they're trying to convince people does not exist... all this while admitting they are not "experts" and haven't done any "research" on the topic.
Texas (Score:5, Funny)
Still fighting the American Civil War in 2010.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the desire to centralize government always comes in the guise of a hero on a white horse. The fight to keep or free slaves was not fought because of the slaves it was due to power grabs from the federal government. You could say that the Democrats really liked having their slaves and the Republicans were trying to free them, but in reality, the Republicans were just grabbing for power, like usual, while the Democrats where trying to keep their right to chose, slavery.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still fighting the crusades in 2010. They made a full frontal attack on 1st amendment. They only knocked the 13th amendment around a little. Don't worry though, you can be sure that's next.
Note: I'm perfectly fine with teaching about the religious fundamentalism that was part of our early history. It's erasing the parts about how and why we have slowly overcome our collective bigotry to become the largely pluralistic society we are today that bugs me.
How will other states react? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How will other states react? (Score:5, Informative)
California is all over this already. They're pushing to ban all textbooks using Texas' information.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I disagree with them particularly in this case, but California already has its own textbook system, and if anything is more influential than Texas. And since I'm complaining, I would like to point out that the California textbook selection method isn't very good, and if the California legislature wanted to focus on textbooks, they should get aro
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The part where California actually starts to cut their government spending back to 2001 levels.
The outcome that leaves children starving in the streets. (They were starving in the streets in 2001?)
FYI California practically uses Mao's little red book as a straight social studies text and treats Marx as insightful and historically correct in his predictions.
Isn't this just increasing the cost of education? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Isn't this just increasing the cost of educatio (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't sound so "conservative" to me. Lies are conservative?
Environmentalism=conservation, "conservatives"=anti-environmentalism.
Constitution: separation of church and state (what could be more conservative than the basis of all US law?). "Conservatives": church in state=sponsored schools.
The list goes on. The only thing they want to conserve is the rich's wealth. "Antiprogress" is a better label than "conservative".
These "conservatives" are anti-American.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're assuming those are the same conservatives. In fact, you're almost certainly addressing two almost entirely different factions within the movement, the economic and social conservatives. They have only the thinnest of threads in common, but are allied because they would lose every election if they competed for votes.
social conservatism is always hypocritical (Score:4, Insightful)
social conservatism is all about a simplistic model of human behavior: teenagers, just don't have sex, homosexuals, just stop being homosexual, just say no to drugs, etc.
ironically, social conservatives always wind up breaking their own principles. just examine the folly of anti-homosexual activists found in homosexual situations form throughout history, especially recent, for examples. and you can bet the daughters of politicians who rail against abortion are secretly flown to canada when a "problem" happens
social conservatism is always "do as i say, not as i do". and there isn't really any malice in their simple-mindedness. most of them sincerely believe their own dunderheaded takes on human nature, and then wind up paying the price for their simpleminded edicts on human behavior
human nature is complex, and when forced into simplistic models, you just wind up causing more suffering than you are attempting to stop. this isn't an attempt to excuse lack of responsibility or criminal activity, its a simple obvious statement that the real world is more complex than very simpleminded teachings
social conservatives are not evil, they're just stupid
that's a very good criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
and i would respond by saying that a society lorded over by social conservatives is better than a society without any standards
in other words, i understand your point, but you don't understand mine
yes, you need standards. but what i am asking for are standards that take in actual truth of human nature. for example: "teenagers: use protection when you have sex." that's a standard, and it recognizes teenagers will have sex no matter what you do. and when they do have sex, they won't get stds and get pregnant
but a social conservative will say: "teenagers: just don't have sex." but then they do anyway, that's what teenagers do. and because you haven't prepared for it, you get teenagers with clamydia and babies. in fact, in traditionally social conservative areas of the united states, teenage birthrates are higher than more liberal areas. what does that tell you? just look at sarah palin's daughter: my point is right up there for all to see about the failure of social conservative teachings: it doesn't stop teenagers from having sex. the desire for teenagers to explore their budding sexuality is a hardwired biological desire that no morality will ever overcome, or ever should try to overcome. if sarah palin had liberal leanings, she would have given her daughter a condom, and there would be no teenage mother up on stage with sarah palin screaming as a symbol for anyone with a true moral compass: "HYPOCRISY"
the point is NOT to have no standards. lack of responsibility, accountability, and outright evil trangressive criminality are horrible, and yes, are worse than social conservativism, i agree with that. a society with horrible crude abusive social conservative standards IS better than no standards at all
what i am asking is not to excuse the inexcusable, to have no standards, what i am asking is to have the RIGHT standards, which are often more complex, involve recognizing certain aspects of human nature you don't want to admit, and incorporate those realizations into your principles
for example: it is not lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, or criminal transgressive behavior when two men or two women have sex. so why prosecute people who do so? why tell teenagers sex is bad? homosexuality or teenagers having sex IS NOT WRONG. but social conservatism tells us they ARE bad. that is homosexuality is criminal. that teenagers having sex is irresponsible. but the genuine truth is that homosexuality is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK and that teenagers having sex IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK
you look at me and see someone who is trying to destroy morality. no: i am making morality BETTER. we NEED morality. what we don't need is simpleminded social conservative morality, we NEED BETTER MORE INTELLIGENT MORALITY
Re:Isn't this just increasing the cost of educatio (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum.
How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
History is the most important subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.
Re:History is the most important subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, "I think we've corrected the imbalance we've had in the past and now have our curriculum headed straight down the middle." I don't know if what they have is "straight down the middle", but to me, any correction the other way is a good thing after 140 years of liberal guidance.
Not really. Thing is, you're assuming these "liberals" that "injected their view" previously were far-left extremists. They weren't even close. In fact, by most of the world's recognition they were at best "mild conservatives" so a correction the other way would've been to push a true liberal agenda, this turn towards hardcore fundamentalism only exacerbates the problem that already existed beforehand.
In most of the world I'm categorized as a right-wing conservative, yet in the US I'd likely be labeled a "capitalism-hating socialist" for my political views. You there have Mussolini in one side and Hitler on the other, the middle ground between them is still fascism. What you need to look for is a middle ground on a *global* scale, but that lies to the left of your left, not to your right.
Wrong reasons for condemning. (Score:4, Insightful)
encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation -- a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing? If you blindly follow what the government says, democracy in a free society falls apart.
A free thinking individual should be skeptical of all things the government has done, question the motives for various laws and if they believe they are unjust, vote against them or otherwise try to get them repealed.
There are some good examples in this particular case. It just comes down to interpretation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
Really, out of all the things wrong in the Texas curriculum why does TFS point out something that could very well be a benefit. Teaching students to question government.
Re:Wrong reasons for condemning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this isn't about questioning government per se.
It's about questioning why America doesn't allow the church to create laws.
Re:Wrong reasons for condemning. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that some people want their brand of Christianity to become the "Church of the United States". You can't protect religion from the government without keeping religion out of it.
Re:Wrong reasons for condemning. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and no. You are right about the pure Constitutional wording, but you ignore the actual writing of many of the founders who were aiming for a pure secular government. Many of our founders wouldn't even be considered Christian by many of the strange-fundamentalists of today (but then again Jesus probably would be rather confused and sickened by them, C'est la vie). You also ignore our legal tradition, and the fact that our government was made to change with the times. SCOTUS pretty much made the current view of the Establishment Clause, which also is completely legal and Constitutional.
Also having the State endorse a single religion, and rule from its principles at the exclusion of others, is pretty much making a de facto state religion, which is unconstitutional in a pretty conservative sense. I find it hard to find common ideological ground with people who think our government should be anything but areligious.
Try reading "George Washington's Sacred Fire" by Peter A. Lillback for a historically correct look at what the founders intended.
By this you of course mean "an interpretation of facts that happens to align with my ideologies". The founding fathers were anything but unified on anything. They had a very diverse range of views that were often contradictory. The Constitution is a political document, meaning it is mainly compromises and concessions. It is the best document we could have, mind, but it is pretty much divorced from the personal philosophy of any single founder. Their individual thoughts on any given topic really doesn't matter one bit from a legalistic stand-point.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation -- a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing?
No. Teaching them to be skeptical of the government in general is a good thing. Teaching them to be skeptical about certain, well established, historical occurrences is not a good thing. They are not teaching kids to be skeptical of the government, but to question the history researched by many,many historians in favor of history as these politicians would like it to be.
Is[sic] the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
No, which is why we have to read all the letters and essays written by the people who wrote that portion of the constitution. Clearly it wa
Can this be legally challenged? (Score:5, Interesting)
"We need to have students compare and contrast this current view of separation of church and state with the actual language in the First Amendment," said McLeroy, who like other social conservatives contends that separation of church and state was established in the law only by activist judges and not by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
I don't suppose this and statements like "Christian land governed by Christian principles" would provide ammunition for a lawsuit that the State Board of Education is itself guilty of a violation of the separation of church and state? It's not evolution, to be sure, but the motivation sounds, based on these accounts, to be highly suspect.
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that there is "separation of church and state" all that the constitution says it that congress can't pass any laws forbidding you from practicing your religion and from establishing a national religion. Such claims are, as rightfully stated, matters of interpretation.
That isn't to say that I don't agree with the interpretation, but it is just that: an interpretation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid employees in a state-funded institution i.e. public school is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid employees in a state-funded institution i.e. public school is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Let's try a little word substitution:
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid chaplain in a state-funded institution i.e. state penitentiary is obviously establishment of a state religion.
Or how about this one:
Sorry, but prayer led by military chaplain in a military-funded institution i.e. chapel is obviously establishment of a state religion.
What about if the "employee" is not paid? What about when congress opens its session with a prayer? (That is done at the opening of every congress, IIRC.) What about
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:4, Insightful)
In both of these cases, neither the prayer or the entire service is required. In addition, the people involved are adults, and thus far more able to say "no".
When school prayer was common, teachers and administrators made it absolutely clear to the students that prayer was required. And since the students are kids, they're not likely to say "no" when pressed - if the students even have the right to say "no". After all, the school is acting in loco parentis.
Think of it this way: Would you be comfortable if teachers told your kids they had to pray to Allah? If you are not happy with that plan, then you should not be happy with forcing others to pray to your god.
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Disallowing prayer in schools *IS* "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". REQUIRING prayer, or even LEADING prayer constitutes an "establishment of religion". Both are similarly odious, and both must be denied / stopped / prevented under the law.
Simply put, if the kids want to pray, let them pray, and to whomever and about whatever they please. However, the teachers, administrators, counselors, etc, should not be leading said prayer, nor should the school policies require it in any way, shape, or form.
Besides, to whom, for whom, or for what reason are the kids going to be required to pray / led to pray? That's where this gets sticky. Muslims and Jews aren't going to pray to Jesus. Atheists aren't going to pray to anyone. Buddhists and Hindus are going to be looking at each other going "wtf?".
That's why the whole notion of challenging the foundational concept of the separation of church and state is, to put it very mildly, so wrong.
We've been going at this for over two centuries, and we're still debating this? It's settled. It's done. It is just and correct. Leave it the hell alone. (I know I am mostly preaching to the choir here; it is just a mini-rant directed at the "conservatives" in Texas rehashing this stupidity).
Re: (Score:3)
Atheists aren't going to pray to anyone.
not true. I'm going to pray to Joe Pesci.
To quote George Carlin:
You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Joe Pesci. Two reasons; first of all, I think he's a good actor. Ok. To me, that counts. Second; he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. Doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that god was having trouble with. For years I asked god to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog. Joe Pesci straightened that cock-sucker out with one visit.
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:5, Insightful)
Praying in school and teachers leading prayers and the pledge of allegiance was standard from the days of the founders until unelected judges disagreed with them ideologically and changed them
As the pledge of allegiance wasn't written until over 100 years after the formation of the union I call bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Except no prevents anyone from praying in school. What is prevented is leading a prayer in school. Think about out it? Why would any organization whose express purpose is irrelevant to religion, engage in religion? What prayer would be led? I bet that if someone stood up in front of those that advocate for government sponsored prayer and started "Oh Dark Lord ..." or even "Lord Alllah..." they'd be outraged. The fact is that institutionalized prayer is coercive. Everyone wants to fit in and not fee
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion"...
Likewise your statement is open to interpretation. You probably meant "is" in a way that means "is not". Since it would be impossible to look at all the context surrounding your writing or research your ideas further we'll have to teach people to be skeptical of the meaning of your comment.
If you look at all the historical context, you'll see that issues which are controversial today were controversial at the founding of this country as well. Some states which sent delegates to the Constitutional Congress have constitutions still have text forbidding atheists from holding office.
Both sides are guilty of cherrypicking. The founding father's never really agreed on anything. The real wisdom they had was in recognizing that if you have two sides debating over something that are unwilling to give in on an issue, then you need to work out some sort of compromise between the two. What we're trying to do now, arguing over who is "right", with the implication that whoever is "right" has carte blanche to shape the country to their liking, is unworkable.
Re:Can this be legally challenged? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real wisdom they had was in recognizing that if you have two sides debating over something that are unwilling to give in on an issue, then you need to work out some sort of compromise between the two.
Some of those compromises didn't look so wise in the late 1860's. The trouble with compromises is that sometimes the stress of maintaining them is too great for civil society, and maintaining them is more unworkable than finding decisively in one side's favor.
I've been playing out what-if scenarios in my head and I don't think the Civil War could have been avoided. I'm guessing the choices were either to come up with something to maintain the status quo on slavery or have the slave states walk out and form their own union. Under the latter option, any attempts at freeing slaves from border states would probably be interpreted as international incidents. And as the two unions expanded westward they would be competing for new territory (essentially the same as actually happened).
Basically, I think that once American slavery had become an entrenched practice, it was guaranteed to end in blows.
Open Source Textbooks? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use? Creative Commons licensing (oddly enough, CC has a link right now to Virginia's Department of Education and some work they are doing) and (insofar as is humanly possible) a focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material. The final form of the textbook delivered to students wouldn't necessarily include those references, but they would be present online and mandatory for anything that reached the "final" version. Let the broader college professor community decide on the acceptability of/validity of any particular cited source.
Not only would this provide a mechanism for creation and distribution of textbooks that wouldn't be easily influenced by political agendas (tenured professors are about as pressure-proof as we're likely to get and still have sufficient domain knowledge to do useful work) but it would make good quality teaching materials universally and cheaply available. If school districts didn't have to pony up so much money for textbooks, what else could they do with the money?
Re:Open Source Textbooks? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a few projects like that. As far as I know, they aren't really in widespread use.
A professor of mine once said that if you really want to know the material you should try writing a textbook on it. He was in the middle of writing various textbooks on Group Theory and Abstract Algebra. I think that's good advice for any expert in any field.
Here are some links I found after a quick google search:
California Open Source Textbook Project [opensourcetext.org]
Textbook Revolution [textbookrevolution.org]
Open Textbook Repository [opentextbook.org]
An open source Linear Algebra Textbook [ups.edu]
A list of open source Math textbooks [ups.edu]
Hope this helps!
A quote from one of the board members: (Score:5, Insightful)
"What we have is the history profession, the experts, seem to have a left-wing tilt, so what we were doing is trying to restore some balance to the standards," board member Don McLeroy said in March [cnn.com].
In other words: "Despite being a two-bit politician on a school board, I'm going to ignore what even I call the experts' views and bend curriculum to support my political whims because I am a fucking retard."
Re:A quote from one of the board members: (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, consider that "history class" in the US focuses incredibly heavily on US history and a lot of the US's major changes (or even it's founding) are the result of progressive movements and/or strong thinkers/leaders--and political opportunism, which should be mentioned. Of course, as a byproduct it'd show that while government itself tends not to push radical and/or necessary change on its own, movements, especially helped by a strong leader, have repeatedly reformed government in radical ways which have greatly benefited people. But, that'd also show progressivism too.
In short, the problem is US history has a significant progressive bias.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I hate saying this or looking like I'm coming off as defending these changes, in my experience it's true that the experts in history have a left wing (progressive, more accurately) tilt,
Number one, if you can actually define a difference between a progressive person and a left wing one, and have one more person agree with your definition, I'll be impressed.
Number two, could it maybe just be that your coloration of history is the one that's too far right, and that the experts are the ones that are neutral/center? Because right now, this argumentation is not going to lead anywhere but a general pissing match. Either discuss history, or shut up. Dismissing positions because of what the person
15 people really decide curriculum everyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not Conservative! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not "Conservative"! Using "Conservative" to describe this is like using "Hacker" to describe script kiddies, or "Canadian Goose" to instead of "Canada Goose". It's popular, but it's still wrong!
Conservative means a limited government with limited power to interfere in the lives of individual citizens; That is, the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials, etc. These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government to force their social and religious agendas on the citizenry; That is not conservative! It's the opposite! Stop calling it that!
'Conservative' is such a strong word (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire education system in U.S. has a very left bias. Our kids are being indoctrinated, not taught. This is good because these textbooks return facts to the books. The left wing bias of most posters here is disconcerting. You all post as if your minority view is the correct one. America is a Center-Right Country. Always has been. Our kids need to be taught facts, not leftist ideology and indoctrinated with lies and bias. So, any movement to put facts into textbooks is a good one.
Not to worry (Score:3, Funny)
These things can be fixed by a couple of well placed SAT questions.
(So, is it time the country to secede from Texas?)
Real Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot of conservatives who hate the idea of state education and want all the schools to be private with no government standards. Cynthia Dunbar, one of the bigger whackjobs on the board, isn't a fan of public schools according to her book where She calls public education a "subtly deceptive tool of perversion." The establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even "tyrannical" [chron.com].
I wonder if that motivation isn't at play here, try to politicize the education standards so much that people lose faith in a state run education system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sad that someone on a public board of education doesn't believe in public education. Perhaps Texas should follow this model and hire police officers who don't believe in serving/protecting and firefighters who don't believe in putting out fires. Kind of sounds like Fahrenheit 451.
Unbiased comparison between new and old (Score:4, Insightful)
Until we see that sort of comparison, I would suggest that most of the hyperbole and histrionics are premature.
Not all students are idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
As the students raise through the educational system, they will be exposed to other viewpoints, and can decide for themselves.
There is an assumption in these posts that all students in Texas are no more than blank screens waiting for the bigots of this view or that to propagandize them into mindless conformity. When the hell have teens been in conformity to anything adults value?
I believe that the Texas School Board is doing nothing but posturing for future political purposes.
The Boy Scouts' take on prayer (Score:4, Interesting)
Why couldn't the schools take the same attitude? It's not that acknowledging religion is illegal/unconstitutional, it's that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (although that, of course, only applies to Congress, not the states).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My little brother is a Boy Scout, so I've attended some of the ceremonies. One thing that's always struck me is there's usually a period in which the leader of the ceremony says something along the lines of "We now ask that you join us in a moment of silence/prayer (I don't remember which), each in your own way." followed by the moment of silence. Why couldn't the schools take the same attitude? It's not that acknowledging religion is illegal/unconstitutional, it's that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (although that, of course, only applies to Congress, not the states).
I was kicked out of Boy Scouts when I was 15 when I became confident in the lack of a god, a Christian god to be specific of what I was taught as a child.
The reason I got kicked out was because I didn't want to remain silent of my lack of such a belief.
You can believe that those silences lack specific meaning all you want, I know for a fact that you need to bow down and be reverent to a higher power, or if you don't you need to keep your mouth shut in order to be and remain a Boy Scout, and that prayer wa
Texas has always lied to kids (Score:3, Insightful)
I took Texas history back in the 60's, and once I had the chance to read some real history, I was shocked to discover how dishonest and misleading the curriculum had been, mostly in ways that seemed designed to promote racism.
TEXAS SUCKS HAR HAR (Score:3, Funny)
Keep trolling. Who can cite an actual argument made by the board on a change they're making on the curriculum? Know why they're talking less about Jefferson? Read [google.com].
I bet a lot of people on here are disappointed there is no mention of how America under Democratic leadership is finally moving beyond the radical Capitalist experiment.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Question the separation of church and state?
If you want the church in your state, you deserve the state in your church.
You might want to rethink your cunning plan, cowboy.
--
BMO
Re:Trite, I know (Score:5, Funny)
Oi! I'm a goddamn piece of shit cum-stain on humanity, I would regress us back into the dark ages with a selfish, head-up-haemorrhoid-filled-arse mentality and I object to being compared to the Texas Board of Education.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[Disclaimer: I'm a Texan]
> Remember when you wanted independence from Mexico? You went and had
> that little revolution. Now you brag about how you're the only state
> to have ever been its own republic, yada, yada.
>
> Tell you what, you can have your independence back. The rest of us
> never really liked you; we kinda think you're douchebags. So, go
> raise that Lone Star flag and tattoo "In God We Trust" on all of your
> children.
>
> Sincerely,
> The Rest of Us
A very common auto b
Re:Could this be... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If your post is correct, why did the south secede based on just the expectation that the next president would admit new states into the Union as free states?