Texas Textbooks Battle Is Actually an American War 1252
ideonexus writes "I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose. This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America. The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals."
Re:A Christian's take (Score:3, Informative)
Can't endorse candidates and remain tax-exempt (Score:3, Informative)
So Ignorant It Hurts (Score:5, Informative)
More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...
True.
... and according to biblical precepts.
False. The founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) read so much philosophy and ethics that The Christian Bible was one of a hundred sources. One could easily argue that the nation was founded on principles of the League of Five Nations [wikipedia.org] as much as anything else. Yes, the founding fathers most likely borrowed from heathen savages that populated a land where everyone went to hell before the Europeans got here.
If the people in the article think the founding fathers didn't intend for a separation of church and state, let's visit what documentation we have [loc.gov] from them:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
All men and women are created equal. Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose. So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.
Re:How bad could it be? (Score:1, Informative)
Could you come up with a better source for the GPA than a blog? The blog doesn't even have a source for it's information.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:1, Informative)
If ANY of what I copied below is ambiguous, please repeat second grade.
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; ... "
"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."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Informative)
In exchange for not paying taxes, churches were told they could not do political stumping. This came about as a direct result of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church meddling in political affairs for centuries.
The Founding Fathers were smart enough to recognize this and forced the separation onto our new nation. And before you claim that the words aren't in the Constitution, recognize that both Jefferson and Madison explicitly stated that separation both during the haggling over the wording of the Constitution as well as in letters, with Jefferson using that exact phrase. Madison, in a letter to the President of the College of Charleston in South Carolina, specifically stated he disagreed with a pamphlet the President had distributed which tried to link Christianity and the new government. In fact, Madison explicitly states, in the fourth paragraph, that the Papal system, which combines government and religion, is the worst of governments.
For reference: Jefferson's Danbury letter [usconstitution.net], including parts he did not include in the final letter.
Madison's letter to Jasper Adams [tripod.com] in which he clearly states that neither State nor religion should intrude on one another's toes. More quotes [tripod.com] from Madison showing his desire for separation of Church and State.
I'm not sure how much more clear what the Founding Fathers thought about concerning the role of religion in the new country can be. They clearly wanted, and specifically stated as much, that there is a wall between the two entities. And for good reason.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:1, Informative)
The idea of a "living Constitution" does not mean the Constitution can not be amended or changed through prescribed methods outlined in the document itself.
This living Constitution crap is a tool of the left/liberal/progressive (whatever we are calling them this week) movement who don't have the support to change the Constitution through proper channels. That pesky document can be such a nuisance on the road to the great Utopia. So instead we are to believe that we should reinterpret the words of the Constitution for contemporary times (aka.. however they want to rationalize and deconstruct it so it fits their distorted view of reality at that moment).
If the meaning of the document can change per generation/decade/monthly by nothing more than fiat means the document has no real meaning whatsoever.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Informative)
It's ZEUS, you FUCKING HEATHEN. ZEUS. MAY YOU YET FEEL HIS THUNDERBOLTS. SHEESH.
Re:Down with Texas (Score:5, Informative)
The real question is WHY school boards across the country still use the output of this moonbat-manipulated process to choose books?
My understanding is that they don't. But Texas is a huge purchaser of textbooks and the standards they set influence what the publishers are willing to print. They publish books in order to placate Texas and the rest of the country are stuck with them.
Re:How bad could it be? (Score:5, Informative)
GWB was born in Connecticut. The greatest trick his campaign team ever pulled was convincing the people he was Texan.
Maybe it was paid for by the people of Connecticut.
Who's actually behind these changes (Score:2, Informative)
Here's an article [washingtonmonthly.com] I read a while back about who's behind these changes. I thought it was rather interesting but alarming at the same time.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:3, Informative)
Evolution is a religion. It is the naturalistic explanation to origins when you don't want to believe in a God who creates.
Evolution doesn't explain the beginning of time, doesn't explain order or complexity, nothing cannot come nothing, chaos does not create order, etc.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginning of time or the origin of life on earth, and I'm not exactly sure what the rest of that stuff you're talking about is referring to.
The solution is in representation (Score:3, Informative)
Hold more than a bachelor's degree, or a degree in education? Run for your local school board. Especially if you live in Texas. You're running against dentists and hair stylists. Just remember to not appear to be some anti-god nutjob.
Meanwhile, everyone lobby their state representatives and education boards to refuse to use any textbooks Texas does. Sue, if necessary. Make Texasisms so toxic that textbook companies will have no choice but to produce books for texas, and books for the rest of us. If they want to turn themselves into a hellhole of ignorance, so be it, but they can do it alone.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no they aren't, [citation]
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Yeah I know not the foremost authority, but look up the Wikis referenced citations.
Dominionism at play (Score:5, Informative)
Dominionists, for those who don't recognize the term, are Christians (usually evangelical Protestants, though some Catholic groups exhibit dominionist theology) who believe that God's "laws" or moral wishes supersede any law drafted by men. To these folks, abolishing abortion by legislation or by Supreme Court reversal, banning homosexual rights (and possibly even recognition as humans), and creationism (along with a general rejection of scientific consensus) are all crucial and pressing policies that must be enacted in any government.
Naturally, that theology runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...). They will, of course, try to argue that they're not trying to establish a Church of America, but nevertheless the consequences of their success are no different. Furthermore, trying to reason with them is usually futile, as they perceive the US to be a rebellious state against God that was originally founded by Christians (which is a poor reading of history at best)-- and since their theology unnaturally blends Old and New Testaments, they think that if the US continues the status quo or adopts policies left of conservatism*, it will meet the same fate as ancient Israel when it was conquered by Babylon, or when it rebelled against the Roman Empire. No amount of arguing from Paul's letters or "render unto Caesar" will do any good, because as far as they're concerned, they have absolutely nothing to lose-- the Kingdom on the earth must be established, but they will not recognize that it was never meant to be a literal kingdom or government built by the hands of men.
But in their minds, they've already lost several times-- the conservative Supreme Court has at least ruled conservatively where social issues were concerned-- as in, they relied more on precedent and the Constitution rather than Christian morals (though we'll really see their true colors when the CA Prop 8 trial is sent their way), they only got what was no doubt in their minds a watered-down abortion/stem cell ban from Congress, and they've now lost a very reliable friend and ally in the White House due to term limits and a charismatic Democrat-- not that the former Alaskan governor did much to help them at all. They refuse to believe that their allies in government (the Republicans) failed them, because their allies are their leaders and to them, "one of us". If you're a member of the congregation, you don't speak ill of "one of us", though you can heap criticism and vitriol on "one of them". Therefore they see the electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 not as defeats, but as "them"-- non-dominionists-- having conspired to destroy the Church (or euphemistically, the "good things about America"). You'll notice that this duress argument is used commonly in the big Tea Party rallies and by some right-wing media men.
So the way they see it, because the "liberals" and the "atheists"** cheated, they're going to fight back just as dirty-- but of course they'll justify their own actions as "saving the children", as that has demonstrably worked to enact skewed legislation for generations. Their efforts to mess with public school textbooks is but a taste of what these extremists are capable of, and are willing to do. The greatest shame is that they will think they have brought another Enlightenment and Revival to the US, when in fact they will have consigned their children to academic inferiority as China, India, and other nations progress. The conservatives who are participating in the name of ideological "balance" are digging their own graves as well, as they are more interested in indoctrination, not building up thinking skills in our children. I suppose that, given their permanent self-victimization, they'll blame our relative failure on the "liberals" and "atheists" too.
* Given the "small government" creed of conservatism, dominionism has always been a strange bedfellow, but I suppose Frank Schaeffer's father leveraged his connections well to cement the alliance...
** And here's where Dawkins' movement really hurts those who wish to bring some of these folks back to reason... Yes, I know reasoning with them is usually futile, but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not exactly sure what the rest of that stuff you're talking about is referring to.
It sounds like they're talking about entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and, well, I'll just let my homey MC Hawking [mchawking.com] explain why he's wrong:
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
Please don't use decades old, disproven arguments (Score:3, Informative)
As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
try the flagellum and the eye/retina. their hasn't been enough time for the 'evolution/mutation' the darwin ascribes for these to have eber developed. also check the fossil records for humans alone, no dead end mutations/evolutions have been fond where one thing wasn;t right and was capped off or died out. as hard as you tr, yu cannot take God/reator out of the picture....
this alone disproves Darwin's rants.
Very nice, decades old baseless assertions. The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days, and there are plenty of dead ends in the primate branch of the fossil record. You need to stop parroting back arguments you don't understand and haven't researched, unless you enjoy looking foolish.
Re:So Ignorant It Hurts (Score:3, Informative)
While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.
More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...
True.
I'd even argue with the devout part. They all considered themselves Christians, but definitely not in an Evangelical sense. Jefferson in particular was put off by dogma, and you cannot get much closer to dogma than running around quoting the Bible in support of your view and stating it as fact.
Re:Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing as wacky as comparing the scientific method to animism. The two things have nothing to do with each other. My wife is a former middle school teacher, and I can assure you that the situation you describe does not exist.
Science classes still teach the same old scientific method, and there's no mention of religious belief systems (yet). I was looking through one of the history texts she taught, and discovered that it was more or less the same as the ones I had way back when. The situations you describe only exist, I'm afraid, in your mind.
Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag (Score:3, Informative)
It needs to be MUCH earlier. Yes, there need to be classes for teens, but also in earlier grades. Otherwise, the kids will already be accustomed to formulating poor questions (or none at all), not seeing bias, or trying to argue based on opinion rather than evidence.
That was a poor way to word the last part. Opinions are good. What I'd like to see less of is, "I believe X, so let me find evidence that supports it and not even bother to look for contradictory evidence or arguments". (To be fair, they tried to teach us the process of finding such information for good arguments in our advanced writing classes ... but the vast majority of kids won't get that.)
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Informative)
Both are needed for people to live functional lives.
I live my life quite functionally without religion, thanks. Quite frankly, I think the implication that it's impossible to live morally without religion to be both hypocritical and grossly insulting.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:3, Informative)
"Rights" in the Constitution are of the People, not the government. The term "militia" was not ambiguous when the Constitution, nor was the distinction between the "People" and government.
"Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened."
Keyword above is "feel". They can "feel" their warm, soft shit and make sculptures thereof if they like, but the Second Amendment was not written with reference to what the wilfully ignorant "feel" and/or their corrupted definition of the term "militia". It is explicit because the long-haired revolutionaries who wrote it had direct experience that the only free man is one who can defend himself.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108 [nraila.org]
"As Patrick Henry put it, the "great object is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," which was lacking in other countries, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," authored the Second Amendment. It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.....Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." and Albert Gallatin, later to serve as Jefferson`s Treasury Secretary, said "lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
Right-wing constituional myths (Score:4, Informative)
One of the weirder bits of right-wing belief is that U.S. Constitution was "divinely inspired" [ldschurchnews.com]. This is an official Mormon position, and some of the more right-wing Christian groups have picked up on it.
What's so weird about this is that we have the Federalist Paper and the debates of the Constitutional Convention. There's not much mystery about how it was put together. The major players all wrote about their thinking.
The basic parameters of the U.S. Constitution came from the constraints the authors faced. They already had the Articles of Confederation of the Continental Congress in force, which set up a confederation of states, somewhat like the United Nations or the European Union. This was a weak federation, and it ran into the problems of most weak federations - too many decisions required unanimity. so it was hard to get things done. So they needed something with more central authority. Britain was still a threat. "We must hang together, or we will assuredly all hang separately". The key point to remember about the Constitutional Convention was that the delegates knew that if their new government broke down, they'd end up being hung for treason by British soldiers. (This was not a theoretical risk. See War of 1812.)
But the states didn't want too much central authority. Almost everyone agreed that a king was a bad idea. (Well, Hamilton wanted a king. He wanted to be king. Didn't fly.) Direct democracy was considered, but the French Revolution was getting underway at the time (the storming of the Bastille occurred during the convention), and that wasn't looking too good. Especially since many of the delegates were aristocrats. Most of the states already had a two-house legislature and a governor, so that looked like an acceptable model to follow. So that was the basic model.
Once it became clear that a strong president was needed, the problem was making sure he didn't become a dictator. All the players knew what had happened to Rome. This led to some basic safeguards. Congress can impeach the President, but the President cannot dissolve Congress. There are also some subtle safeguards not often mentioned; the President has a fixed term of office and it runs out at noon on inauguration day. It's the clock, not the swearing in, that makes the new President. So an outgoing president can't stall. (Nixon's cronies once considered that option.) So when the time comes, the old guy has to leave, like it or not.
On the rights side, the debates are well known. Again, existing models were followed; the Bill of Rights looks a lot like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The notion of an established religion was rejected; Britain had that, and it led to several civil wars. So the delegates agreed on a "hands off" approach to religion.
All this stuff was argued out. What made it work was that the delegates all knew that if they screwed up and a divided nation resulted, Britain would move in. The knowledge that one is to be hanged at dawn concentrates the mind wonderfully.