Texas Schools Board Rewriting US History 1238
suraj.sun picked up a Guardian (UK) piece on the Texas school board and their quest to remake US education in a pro-American, Christian, free enterprise mode. We've been keeping an eye on this story for some time, as it will have an impact far beyond Texas. From the Guardian: "The board is to vote on a sweeping purge of alleged liberal bias in Texas school textbooks in favor of what Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy. ... Those corrections have prompted a blizzard of accusations of rewriting history and indoctrinating children by promoting right-wing views on religion, economics, and guns while diminishing the science of evolution, the civil rights movement, and the horrors of slavery. ... Several changes include sidelining Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, while introducing a new focus on the 'significant contributions' of pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the Civil War. ... Study of Sir Isaac Newton is dropped in favor of examining scientific advances through military technology."
1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
I love the aping of a plot point from 1984. Unfortunately, being that they're morons, they don't know the extreme irony of what they're doing. The sad part is neither will the students of Texas if this miseducation process goes ahead.
The sad irony... (Score:5, Informative)
I especially like the one about ditching Isaac Newton in favor of military technology. Not only did the law of gravity give the first definitive equation for the ballistic trajectory of cannonballs, artillery shells, etc., but Newton switched from being a physicist to being a devout Christian theologian later in his life. I would've thought they'd love Newton, but nooo, they're so ignorant they're chopping out someone who falls right into their key focus areas. Either that, or maybe he was the wrong kind of Christian.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
>I was taught that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves from their southern oppressors.
> In reality, the north controlled the federal government and set a history of economic policies
> that ignored the well-being of the southern states. Slavery was the last straw; abolition would
> have crushed the southern economies
So slavery was the part of the southern economy that was keeping it viable. In other words, the war was fought over slavery.
> Secession happened out of fear and desperation to preserve a way of life.
Yes, a way of life where slavery was not only acceptable, but essential.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
I'd have to agree that 1984 is about telling the big lie until it becomes the truth, including the historical truth. But in the AC's defense, the quote is about both real control and the illusion of control. Where Big Brother's regime can really control something, they can override any past influences, let just those parts of the past they want to allow to influence the future. Where they don't really have direct power to deal with real events, they can fake it with the big lie technique.
I.e. if there's a famine, it was objectively caused by past events (such as screwing up centralized agricultural planning). In the present, the Orwellian society can aim things so the famine mostly impacts regions where there are lots of suspected dissidents. They can also or alternatively rewrite official history to say the famine happened because of Eastasian saboteurs or that treasonous Emanuel Goldsmith, or they can rewrite current rumors to say it isn't happening at all, and it's double plus ungood to spread such untruths. In practice, they are likely to use all these techniques in overlapping series.
Turn any historical current towards accomplishing their present goals - lie as needed to deflect any organised opposition - and lie extra, just in case.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
Forgive this guy, he has only read the latest Texas version of 1984, which deals more with people joining the Army to become better people, and shooting down evil atheists and muslims.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
Forgive this guy, he has only read the latest Texas version of 1984, which deals more with people joining the Army to become better people, and shooting down evil atheists and muslims.
Oh yes, the Heinlein version!
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
This classic quote doesn't have much to do with rewriting history, I'm afraid.
I'm afraid it does. It is one of the basic points of the book, and what the entire Ministry of Truth is all about. Shortly after the above quote, this appears:
'In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?'
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
Unless there was a "revision" made to 1984...
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Should we replace bridge inspections with votes about whether or not they are going to fall down, as well?
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
You're entitled to your opinions. You're not entitled to your facts. The "majority" is often incorrect regarding the facts. Voting about the facts doesn't change the facts.
In my opionion, the Texans that voted these standards in are trying to alter facts. They're also attempting to fabricate facts, ignore facts, and spread religious and philosophical intent into what should be textbooks, not books on philosophy and religion. These board members are doing a disservice to their constituency. They should be removed from their positions, as they have cleary been (IMHO) irresponsible and have violated US Federal Law as regards discrimination regarding race, national origin, and creed.
They embarrass every Texan.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate here, they aren't changing facts, nor are they actively suppressing the truth, they're just... withholding certain facts. Like separation of church and state. Not to say that's a good thing, as the arab world is attempting to "forget" the holocaust, in the same way we're trying to forget the whole church and state thing. Of course we've been omiting huge chunks of recent world history for quite some time; our worldview is based on the British worldview. Nobody ever talks about the Dutch trading company, or the Sino-Japanese wars. The CIA's involvement in Iraq, Cuba and countless other countries has been glossed over. Hell we tried to side with the Russians to go to (nuclear) war with China in the 1950's but the Russians talked us out of it.
History is written by the winners.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Facts are, by definition, true. (You can't have false facts, that would be fiction)
Withholding the facts is, BY DEFINITION, suppressing the truth.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting, that's true! I'm arguing the difference between suppressing and withholding however.
What I meant was,
Textbooks can only hold so much information and minds can only retain so much - you have to pick and choose what to put in there. This is a job that has to be done by humans, and humans can't be 100% objective, especially when it comes to history. While I do agree that there's a political agenda behind this (and I'm not hearing too many people denying this) you have to admit that while devious, this is a pretty legitimate tactic. They're withholding certain facts in light of other ones. It's not that they've gone about burning books and removing tangential volumes from libraries that teach other ideologies - THAT would be suppressing the truth/facts. That's not what they're doing here - they're attempting to change, or highlight certain ideologies by removing the parts they don't feel are relevant. Again, devil's advocate.
Lucky for us, the Texas Board of Education is either indirectly or directly elected by the people, and the problem will sort itself out according to the will of the people.
Point well taken, but that's not what's happening (Score:5, Interesting)
My grandfather and my wife's grandfather were on opposite sides of WWII. We have radically different interpretations of the events of that conflict. You should hear some of the conflicting explanations my wife and I offer our kids when we travel to some places around the Pacific Rim.
But, to borrow from Lewis Black, we "agree on what the fuck reality is." We agree that you can't talk about Truman without Hirohito, you have to include both Tojo and MacArthur, the A6M and the Corsair.
Only telling part of the truth is a famous method of deception. In fact, the Devil is famous for telling the worst lies by speaking only part of the truth.
The Texas Board of Education isn't even trying to look like they're working in good faith.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
What? We're removing people for putting bias into textbooks now?
I'm intrigued by who you think will be left to teach after your purges have been carried out.
I study the history of history, and it's very fascinating to watch this Texas process happen. It's a reaction to a trend that's been going on since the 1960s, which has been more or less looking at history through a politically correct lens. In the 1950s, the crusades were considered a just war. Kids raised today were raised instead by a series of textbooks that portrayed them as a war of European aggression against the innocent people living in the Levant.
In honesty, the first is closer to the truth, but if you mention this to anyone raised by the modern system, they will sputter and become outraged if you claim the crusades had some justification to them. They know what they know, but they don't know what they know is wrong.
Note: I disagree with many of the Texas changes, but there is a politically correct bias in the majority of modern day historical scholarship, that I think they have a legitimate reason to respond to.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
> In the 1950s, the crusades were considered a just war...
> In honesty, the first is closer to the truth,
Does that include the children's crusade ? Yeah, let's send an army of prepubescent soldiers against an organized military and assume that God will protect them... worked out great too - most of those kids ended up slave laborers.
I was raised in one of the most conservative churches in the world - where the debate on whether women should be allowed to be elders, deacons or ministers has been raging for 20 years and making no major progress.
Even in THAT church's "church history lessons" as part of Sunday school the crusades were called "the single biggest collective sin in the history of all Christianity".
I don't think there has been anybody who deemed them a "just war" since the Enlightenment. That they were largely unsuccessful, that there was military and political factors involved are asides here.
They were not "just" wars (frankly - I don't believe there can EVER be a case where the INVADERS get to claim 'just war' - the invaded sometimes can), not even the deeprouted religious views of those who fought them make them just. The descendents of the crusaders pretty much all decided that what they were doing would NOT be deemed just by God, and thus they stopped DOING it.
In what whacked out place did you go to school that taught any different ?
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the goal is to achieve a middle-ground compromise between most American citizens' opinion.
Do you subscribe to a consensus model of the truth? I mean, you don't seem to be the least concerned as to the historical facts of the situation.
While it is practically impossible to cast history free from ideological perspective, good history must always be bound by the documentary* evidence. I find it unacceptable to pretend Jefferson didn't exist simply because his view on the separation of church and state potentially offends the sensibilities of most American citizens'.
How about we forget about achieving any sort of "compromise" and actually teach History? You know that battleground of different ideological interpretations built spun around the surviving ensemble of documents.* Teaching kids that different people have different opinions might just turn out to be educational. Or is that what the educators fear?
[*using 'documents' in an extremely wide sense nowadays]
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that any of the "facts" in the Texas curriculum are undocumented. The problem lies in the making of a textbook. There's only so many days in the school year, and only so many pages in a history textbook. Choosing which facts make it to print and which do not is necessarily a judgment call. Which of these facts are the most significant developments in American history? There's no "objective" way to answer this, since importance is itself a value judgment.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Choosing which facts make it to print and which do not is necessarily a judgment call. Which of these facts are the most significant developments in American history? There's no "objective" way to answer this, since importance is itself a value judgment.
Yes that was my point. However deliberately airbrushing Comrade Jefferson out of the picture, for instance, is going a little further than simply making a "value judgment."
My solution is rather than teach the kids "facts," to teach them History. Selecting which viewpoints are represented to illustrate the variety of historiographical approaches towards particular events is of course itself a judgment call. It is, however, inherently less susceptible to propagandistic abuse and one more likely to illustrate that in matters of history (or politics), in contradistinction to the physical sciences or math, there is no such thing as the one correct position.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
>By definition a Troll is someone who makes defamatory ad hominem comments about the poster, instead of bothering to legitimately address the subject of discussion.
That would actually be a "flamer".
A troll is someone who deliberately presents a false and/or stupid opinion in order to generate a reaction in their audience.
Welcome to the internet!
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that would be a bad idea.
More than once in our history, "most American citizens' opinion" would have led us in exactly the wrong direction. We don't want majority rule, or the Founders would have written a constitution that made us a real democracy.
It's worth remembering that most of the big political conflicts we fight now were also being fought in 1776, including the place of religion in a free society, the worth of a man, taxes, states rights, the dangers of unfettered corporate or government power, even national debt. We were lucky to make it to 1810, much less than 2010. There was no magical time in our history when we had it "just right". There was no Golden Era of American Greatness. That's why when I hear someone say "we want our country back" I want to ask "back to what?" It really is an ongoing experiment, and we shouldn't forget that we're dealing with ingredients that can go "boom". And we shouldn't be assholes. Not to each other, and not to people who show up here and want to get in on some of our good luck. Because none of us - not one - has earned everything he has just through his own labor and innovation. And if you think you have, let me drop you into the Dominican Republic or some poor country in Africa and let's see how far your "sweat, determination and innovation" get you.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
It surprises me that a country called sub-developed like Chile has way, WAY more common sense that a so called developed country. All I know is that if I have kids, I won't put them on public schools here.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes sense once you realise creationism has more to do with politics than with religious faith. Creationism (in the modern sense) was created by religious groups in the USA as a way to get religious education into American schools. Since the USA has a strict division between church and state, religious education has always been controversial in public schools, sometimes avoided entirely, so religious groups have had to "disguise" religious education as science. And they didn't attempt this until they saw religious influence on society fade in the early 1900's - before that, Darwin's theory of evolution was largely accepted by christians and even officially embraced by many churches.
In Europe (and presumably the Americas outside of the US), there is generally no strict separation between church and state, and religous education in schools is common - so there is no need to disguise religion as science.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
The free market has failed because it allows people to make billions by merely manipulating money in creative ways. This generation of unproductive wealth siphons the hard work of productive members of society and gives it to people who produce nothing, create nothing, and contribute back nothing. They use their new wealth to buy political power and advocate even lower taxes and less regulation. It's an endless cycle of exploitation with the hard working segments of society supporting the decadence of the rich who feel they are entitled to the wealth they have done nothing to earn.
The solution to this problem is NOT less regulation, lower taxes, or a more "free" market.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
Regulation will *always* be used by the powerful to buttress their power and position. Always.
The only check against that is a limitation on government power. That is what the founding fathers were attempting to do.
Adding regulation only makes matters worse.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Only when you let the crooks make their own regulation. The working class cannot trust their so called "representatives" to promote their interest. Those in congress all come from the upper class, the elite segments of society and that is who they really represent. Only direct action can secure a better future for the average American. So yes, I want less government intervention too, I want MORE populist intervention.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the big problem is not with the economy (not that there aren't problems), but with our corporate-controlled political system. I, like you, am tired of seeing millionaire candidates elected to represent us. Not many of us seem to care, and the ones that do are called socialists, pinkos, etc. I believe there should be a real attempt to lessen the amount of money spent on political campaigns, to level the playing field and allow us to elect true representatives from our cities and states. (Representatives with a lowercase-r, in the sense that all politicians are elected to represent the will of the populace)
Our current political system allows corporations to back their favorite millionaire candidates, who then proceed to start wars for purpose of monetary gain for those corporations. You better believe Haliburton profits off our wars. And that's just the peak of it. On the local level it's the same story. You have local industries helping out local millionair candidates for state governor. Similarly educated regular people don't have a chance in hell getting elected because they don't have the money to compete during the election campaign cycle.
And sure, a lot of the time we get a 'benevolent king', like Bill Clinton, who doesn't screw us over. But that's just luck. He was rich too - he went to the same Ivy League schools as the rest of them. Most of the time we'll just get a crook or a businessman. And I don't think that's what the founding fathers ever intended.
I don't believe much should be done from an economic perspective to prevent this. This problem has to be solved politically. Unfortunately, unless held at gunpoint, our representatives in government (again, little 'r') will never vote to reduce their chances at re-election.
Meanwhile, they get free reign to do whatever they want, and spin reality to their liking. We may remain the world's most powerful nation for decades to come, but we are losing what made our country great. These people who claim to be against big government are really for big government - big government in their favor. And when government favors the rich over the poor, and huge banks over small business, religion over science - you've got a slope leading to corporatism... dare I say outright fascism.
Our kids are going to grow up reading this stuff they're forcing on them now. They will be the ideal voters for the politicians of the future. Imagine what life will be like for us then. Maybe there will be another witch hunt. Maybe there will be more prisons to facilitate the result of more victimless crimes. Law will be a minefield, the government will be all powerful and all knowing, and the majority will support the government's effort in the name of the war on terror. In the name of fighting the Muslims. In the name of Christianity!
The future is bleak.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
The Free Market was destroyed long before you were born. The Free Market today is a misnomer, there is no Free Market.
What has failed is the idea that the Government can control Economy with politics. Rockefeller created the Federal Reserve by colluding with Government Officials, who should have never been allowed to create such an entity in the first place.
Once you have the Fed, the Free Market is out of the window. Instead you have the real Government printing money and giving it to the preferred corporations at a very low artificial rate. Where is the Free Market in this? You have some corporations colluding with the Government to create regulations to prevent competition. Where is the Free Market in that?
It is not the Free Market that allowed people to make billions by doing 'money manipulation', it is the policy of the Government, which has adopted the Keynes ideas that the normal Economy should be controlled because normal Free Market economy is cyclical, it has a Boom (expansion) and a Bust (contraction) and before the Fed, when there was Free Market, the US standard of living was constantly rising and prices would not go up all the time but would come down due to actual competition. The Government took Keynes ideas and applied it to its own purposes because Keynes is about removing the Bust from the Economic cycle, which is actually a BAD thing because it does not allow the Economy to restructure, cut the fat, get rid of some jobs that are really not needed.
The Government cannot allow the Bust because no Government is a producer. Government is a burden on Economy and during a Bust it has to shrink by reducing spending. Government cannot have that, they want their jobs forever and ever in an ever growing 'economy'.
So they print money left right and center, print bonds and t-bills when they really should have been raising taxes for their spending, but Governments know that it is not a popular move, to raise taxes for actual spending. So the borrow and print, debasing the currency while propping up huge Monopolies and regulating out the competition.
Event he income tax is the manifestation of the Government's agenda to keep the inflation going and setting the economy to failure because income tax is a disincentive against production. Income is not what a person spends on him/her self, it is money that is not spent on anything for pleasure, instead the money is re-invested.
Free Market Economy NEEDS investment. It needs liquidity, it needs people saving money and putting it back to work. Government reduces the incentives to put money back to work and it creates liquidity in the form of DEBT and not in the form of savings.
Government printing and lending policies lead to banks getting free money and then they gamble with it. Of-course they do, I would totally gamble with huge wads of cash if it was not actually MY money and I never had to be responsible for losing it!
Government insuring the banks, insuring the mortgages, insuring insuring insuring everything, creates huge moral hazard. People do not gamble hugely like that with their own money knowing that there may be real consequences. Government removes the consequences and gives out the free money.
Government created Monopolies are huge economies of scale who benefit ridiculously from Globalization, unlike small and medium size businesses. Government props up Huge Monopolies because those pay the most in bribes, it just makes sense to grow your own gigantic money laundering machines. When USSR fell apart and the world became Global, the Monopolies created by the Government moved out of the US to places with cheap production costs and little if any regulations.
Government created the Monopolies and the reasons for them to move. Minimum wage laws, regulations that were useful for Monopolies to keep the competition down became a nuisance. So they move production.
Government encourages consumption based economy from all fronts, from the Keynes ideas of fake consumption
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare them to the Green Party or a true Socialist party and you'll see that they are both on the right of the entire political continuum. I didn't say they were an extremist group, they are just right leaning in their political ideologies with some small variations to make it appear as though there is a real choice. On economic matters neither of them question that capitalism is the best and only way to organize an economy, and none are advocating for the kind of progressive tax structure the US needs.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Only by American standards. Most european conservatives, even UK conservatives (where the movement started) are to the left of the democrats.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans are more centre right - "liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (albeit with some limited government regulation), private property rights, the existence of the welfare state in some limited form, and opposition to socialism and communism. "
The Democrats are centre left - "Environmentalism and environmental protection laws, value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures, Immigration and multiculturalism, Fair trade over free trade, Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties."
Those are reasonable descriptions of the positions of the two major parties, say, 25 years ago, not today. These days the Democrats stand for most of what's on the "centre right" list, and the Republicans for ... well, it's hard to say, exactly, except "if the Democrats are for it, then we're against it."
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
the confederate south was largely democratic. Those were the guys with the slave economy. Lincoln, a republican, issued the emancipation proclamation.
Those facts are correct, but you are getting the point wrong because you are confusing Republican with conservative.
As he said "The modern Republican party is the party of sexism and racism, of homophobia and xenophobia, of fear-mongers and war-mongers, of liars and hypocrites, of systemic incompetence and systemic corruption. They are anti-environment, anti-education, anti-science". And he was correct.
And he later wrote "Never mind the simple fact that conservatives have never been right about anything, or on the right side of any issue... they've been on the wrong side of slavery, the wrong side of allowing women the vote, the wrong side labor rights, the wrong side of civil rights, the wrong side of gay rights, the wrong side of the torture issue". And he was correct.
He got it right both times. If you note that he specifically referred to the modern Republican party and later to conservatives. Around the time of the civil war Lincoln and the Republicans were the more liberal party and the Democrats were the more conservative party. Hell, the democrats of that time were trying to conserve the traditional institution of slavery and segregation
The positions of both parties have varied quite substantially over time, but around the time of FDR and WWII there was a particularly historic reversal between the two parties.
The plain fact is that almost 100% of blacks today have joined the Democrats, as have a majority of Jews, Asians, Latinos, and any other minority you care to name. And the undeniable fact is that virtually all racists have joined the Republican party, if only to get away from the huge number of blacks and other minorities "infesting" the Democratic party. Not all Republicans are racist, but virtually all of the racists infest the Republican party. And it's absolutely hysterical when Republicans constantly reach back a HUNDRED AND FIFTY FREAKING YEARS pointing to Lincoln as a Republican over and over again, trying to deny Republicans are The Racist Party. The fact that you have to reach back a hundred and fifty years for a defense just demonstrates how pathetic that defense is.
-
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, this is hilarious! It's like watching a video of a cat barking! Seriously?!? A right wing and a far right wing?
Yes, seriously. There is no major left-wing party in US politics today. Far right-wingers who claim that the Democrats are "left-wing" or "socialist" or "communist" only reveal their absymal ignorance of history, which Texas is apparently doing its best to reinforce in the next generation.
To put it in more concrete terms: Obama's policies are in essence Republican policies of a generation or two ago, and ever Republican President of the latter half of the 20th c. -- yes, even St. Ronald -- would be considered far too liberal to find a place in the Republican Party of today.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
Far right-wingers who claim that the Democrats are "left-wing" or "socialist" or "communist" only reveal their absymal ignorance of history, which Texas is apparently doing its best to reinforce in the next generation.
You seem to be the ignorant one. Far right-wingers will claim the other side are all fairies who only eat honey, if it gets them the Vote. Truth has nothing to do with what one side claims the other side is. Who knows what they really believe?
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Here's what a real leftist government would look like. Immigrants would be given amnesty and a path to citizenship. The top marginal tax rate would be closer to 90% than the current 35%. Regressive taxes like sales tax and vehicle taxes would be eradicated. There would be a massive investment in a single payer government run health care system for all. A massive reinvestment in education from bottom up, focusing on leveling the inequality of poor school districts in minority neighborhoods and inner cities. Wall Street would be heavily regulated and much of what currently goes on would be illegal. Housing, food, and a meaningful job would be a right just like speech currently is. Workers would collectively own the businesses they work for. The level of income inequality would be unacceptable. And the military industrial complex would be dismantled, removing the troops we have stationed over seas. We would also never use our military again in an unprovoked war of aggression.
THAT would be a leftist party. Do we have a viable party like that on the national level? Do you have that in Maryland.
Get some perspective. Your "far left" is demonstrably to the right of center.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what a real leftist government would look like.
Heh, let me compare what you said to Norway, which is considered pretty much the most socialist country in a socialist Europe currently under a socialist government.
Immigrants would be given amnesty and a path to citizenship.
No, we have illegal immigrants but there's no general amnesty for them.
The top marginal tax rate would be closer to 90% than the current 35%.
47.8%
Regressive taxes like sales tax and vehicle taxes would be eradicated.
VAT is 25%, vechicle taxes are a complex mix of weight, horsepowers, emissions etc. but highest in the world.
There would be a massive investment in a single payer government run health care system for all.
Yes.
A massive reinvestment in education from bottom up, focusing on leveling the inequality of poor school districts in minority neighborhoods and inner cities.
Yes, though the school system is underfunded it is far more equal than the US.
Wall Street would be heavily regulated and much of what currently goes on would be illegal.
Mostly no, nobody is stupid enough to try a soviet plan economy. The Oslo Stoch Exchange is quite regular.
Housing, food, and a meaningful job would be a right just like speech currently is.
Housing yes. Food yes. Meaningful job? No. Though the government does try to act anti-cyclical creating jobs in downturns unlike California etc. which seem to be cutting adding to the downturn instead.
Workers would collectively own the businesses they work for.
No. But there is a larger public sector and more government ownership interests.
The level of income inequality would be unacceptable.
Yes. Progressive taxes and strong unions have made the income inequality much less.
And the military industrial complex would be dismantled, removing the troops we have stationed over seas. We would also never use our military again in an unprovoked war of aggression.
Norwegian troops are in Afghanistan as well, this is more geopolitics than a left/right policy.
THAT would be a leftist party.
Yes. Far to the left of the Socialist Left party on some areas. The democrats aren't exactly left by my standards but you are setting the bar where any party will fail.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, liberals want that. The Democrats in office don't, which is why they are not very liberal. Saying they just don't come out and say that's what they support is unverifiable to the point of meaninglessness. When they actually get the chance to implement real liberal policies they don't, and that's what matters.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, on the one hand you have the Democrats and Republicans, and on the other...
Or are you seriously saying that the balance should occasionally swing to people who believe in politicising the education syllabus and infusing it with religion?
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'll show you politics in America, right here: I think the puppet on the left is correct. I think the puppet on the right shares more of my beliefs. Wait a minute...there's one guy holding both puppets!" -Bill Hicks
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Funny)
(Incidentally, the above link is on the sane side of the lunatic fringe. The real crazies are the ones who think that Newton was divinely inspired, and they don't want none of Einstien's "Relativist" jew-physics... Yes, there are people who think that the "theory of relativity" is somehow connected to "cultural relativism")
WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
They can do that?
They are not even trying to cover up that they are trying to indoctrinate everyone: "Dunbar says really matters: a belief in America as a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy."
Two words ... (Score:5, Informative)
Manifest Destiny ... look it up. Think of it as a democratic jihad. Not a good idea. The British had a similar notion: The White Man's Burden. Well meaning ideas that just result in a lot misfortune.
Re:Two words ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Two words ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Manifest Destiny ... look it up.
You almost had it. I think you're referring to American Exceptionalism [wikipedia.org].
Re:Two words ... (Score:4, Funny)
Manifest Destiny [...] The White Man's Burden. Well meaning ideas
Those notions were born of rationalizations for exploitation, not good intentions.
Re:Two words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Manifest Destiny ... look it up. Think of it as a democratic jihad. Not a good idea. The British had a similar notion: The White Man's Burden. Well meaning ideas that just result in a lot misfortune.
Misfortune there was. I'd go a step further - Manifest Destiny wasn't even well-meaning, unless you subscribe to the notion that the white man was doing a service to Native Americans by killing them.
The great tragedy to me is that while we as western civilization have done a somewhat serviceable job of preaching the evils of slavery and of the German genocide against the Jews, but we seem to be trying to forget the genocide we practiced against Native Americans. Manifest Destiny was no less than that.
Wonder if these new Texas books teach the Trail of Tears. I have my doubts.
They'll have to pick on religion at some point (Score:4, Funny)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
But no history ever conforms exactly to a general idea,
even if we assume that "America [is] a nation chosen by God as a beacon to the world, and free enterprise as the cornerstone of liberty and democracy",
the indoctrinator part is that they plan to write history, keeping in mind what they want the history to show (and they admit this).
You must write history without any any thoughts to what you want it to say overall, or you will end up with a history used to indoctrinate people.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the problem. If you write a history book without any bias, the entire curriculum will consist of rote memorization of names and dates. That kind of data is completely worthless. The purpose of history is to learn from the past. Learn why people behaved in such a manner; what they believed that influenced the events; how we can improve ourselves from others' experience. Without bias, you get none of that insight.
With bias... well, then you get a biased view of history, so you need to have several different texts from several different authors, and you need to teach the students critical thinking skills so they can formulate their own conclusions. We don't have enough teachers that can think for themselves to hope they would be able to teach the students to do so.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree that a lack of bias necessarily makes history boring.
And I would say that not knowing history, is better then knowing a fake version of history.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
"They did it first!" is not an acceptable excuse.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
this country is nothing without technical superiority over the rest of the world
What? The first part of your comments sounds pretty reasonable, but then you drop this bombshell.... What makes you think your country needs to dominate the world? What's wrong with just being a team player like most other countries are content to do? If you can't accept that, you're in trouble, since any 'technical superiority' (apart from military) you may have had is long gone....
Sad that this is even being considered (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it is absurd that the Texas school board is even considering such changes, but it really is up to the people of Texas to fix their school board.
On the other hand, if an education in Texas gets bad enough, universities and employers might start to pass over applicants from Texas because they are under qualified. This seems like a good thing as it is basically the free market sorting out the educated from the ignorant.
Re:Sad that this is even being considered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sad that this is even being considered (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was a state governor, I'd pay the faculty of my state universities create textbooks for my k-12 curriculum. Instead of paying royalties to large publishers, my faculty would be better paid.
Re:MOD PARENT UP UP UP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad that this is even being considered (Score:5, Interesting)
FrostPeas (Score:4, Interesting)
Zero comments after most of a day? Really?
Okay, I'll throw one down. Probably a bit OT, but WTF.
I live in Arizona, ground zero for this crap. I had an interesting conversation about Our State Issues this week.
And I left there thinking:
The problem is not the 25% hardcore dipshits who will always lean this way. Nothing can be done to help them.
The problem is the 30% of otherwise kind, intelligent, educated people who because of some flaw in their heads find themselves thinking things like: "Hmmm, that Glenn Beck fella makes some good points."
I wish there were more I could do to reach them, beyond conversing with them delicately and providing an alternative example by what I say and how I live my life. It will never be enough to turn the tide in the nation, or this state. Maybe not even enough to turn it in this town. But it's what I have. And hoping against hope, I'll keep going with it, and just pray to a god who doesn't exist that power ends up in the hands of better people.
Re:FrostPeas (Score:5, Insightful)
> The problem is not the 25% hardcore dipshits who will always lean this way. Nothing can be done to help them.
In my opinion, the actual problem is that kind of statement. How come someone that does not agree with you should need help? What help? Letting them know that they are wrong and you are right? Don't you see that to them, you are the one that needs help?
The purpose of democracy is not to be right or wrong. The purpose of democracy is to let people decide for themselves. And everywhere it works in the same way: a minority of people is leading the way while the majority is silently following. This is still consent, like it or not.
Freedom is freedom. That includes freedom to choose God, Science, or both, and to influence public policy. If you want to impose your views without having other people trying to do the same, then what you need is not democracy, you need dictatorship.
Re:FrostPeas (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't about opinion. This is about facts. You are entitled to your own opinion, but YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS.
Calling the United States a "Christian" nation is demonstrably false. You may "believe" otherwise, but you are still WRONG.
Re:FrostPeas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FrostPeas (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the thing if you're delusional enough just about any opinion can become indistinguishable from fact.
If you're poorly educated and don't know how to think and apply critical reasoning, which describes a large percentage of the US population, then you probably have a poor grasp of the difference between opinion and fact, and can easily confuse the two.
Such as death panels in the health care bill or Iraq being a war about terrorism, both are demonstrably false, but a bunch of nut jobs hang to it anyways to the bitter end.
Once again, THESE ARE NOT OPINIONS.
Would it be a good idea to set up government-run committees charged with rationing health care coverage to save money ("death panels")? Some people think it would; if we're to offer universal coverage, then without some restrictions in place, costs could easily explode and bankrupt the system. Other people think it wouldn't; there are other ways of effectively controlling costs without the government deciding when to pull the plug on Grandma. THESE ARE OPINIONS.
Did any version of the health care reform bill recently passed by Congress and signed by President Obama call for establishing these "death panels"? Some people think so; several prominent politicians tried to warn the public that the bill contained such a provision. Other people don't think so; there was a section of the bill dealing with end-of-life care, but it was about conversations between doctors, patients and patients' families about what options are available, not about a government-run panel and there was nothing about encouraging euthanasia. THESE ARE NOT OPINIONS.
Re:FrostPeas (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the fact that our federal system of government was heavily influenced by Presbyterian form of church government, I would say that depends on what you mean by "Christian nation."
Theocracy? No. Heavily influenced by Christian values and thought? Yes.
Re:FrostPeas (Score:5, Insightful)
> When I say 'help them', what I mean is: help them find a way to live that doesn't involve them imposing their ways on me and anyone else with a brain and a heart.
That changes everything! Now that I understand that you don't want to impose your way on them, that you just want to help them understand how superior your opinion is and that they should recant their shameful dogma, I have no choice but to heartily agree with you.
This being said, since you have such a deep understanding of relativism, then I don't have to explain to you that those people probably want to help you also because they believe that people with a brain and a heart should agree with them. I even suspect that for some of them, people with a different opinion are "dipshits". Tsk tsk.
> They want my tax dollars to fund police stopping anyone off-white.
I'll quote Fred Thompson on this one:
"The Times Square bomber wasn't flagged at the airport even though he paid cash for his ticket. Which is understandable. Why would you worry about a nervous, cash-paying Pakistani when there are grandmothers in wheelchairs to be searched?"
Should the police "stop anyone off-white"? I don't think so. But shouldn't they be more suspicious when they see a nervous Pakistani paying his ticket in cash, or when they see young white men in militia uniforms driving around federal buildings in a white Econoline? I mean, at some point one has to stop being self-righteous and let some common sense take over.
> If they want to take my money, and use it in fascist ways, then yes, I'm going to have a major problem with that, and I'm going to say so when I have the chance, as loudly as I dare.
My guess is that if it was up to you, *their* money would be spent on "multicultural education in the Tucson schools". But face it - who got the most votes at the last election? People vote for whoever they want so the public policy is going the way they want. Democracy 101.
> If you don't like it, you can whine at me some more on Slashdot, I reckon, and I'll see you at the polls.
I am not whining at you. I try to respectfully point out that insulting people that disagree with you is not a good start for that great mission of Truth and Dialog you talk about.
Good luck at the polls. I guess you'll enjoy it - after all, a vote is anonymous, just like your comments.
In case there is any confusion... (Score:5, Informative)
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
--Treaty of Tripoly [wikipedia.org]
Ratified by the Senate, signed by President John Adams in 1797.
I hope that clears things up for these right wing wackos who are confused about our founding fathers' intentions. I hope to see this quote up on a sidebar in the next issue of their books.
Re:In case there is any confusion... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In case there is any confusion... (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't clear anything up but your misinterpretation of the Treaty. If you actually read all of the wikipedia information you would have seen this too.
("According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.)
If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men. Some deeply religious (Samuel Adams for one.) But they believed all religions should be allowed to be practiced without persecution. (Constitution of the US 1st Amendment.) Since history is not your strong suit let me help you with this. The pilgrims came over here because of religious persecution from the Church of England. When the founding fathers wrote all of our laws they made sure this could not happen again, as well as, made sure we would not be ruled over again.
Our country is based on the people voting for who they believe will do what they want to be accomplished. We don't work for the government they work for us.
But most of America has forgotten all of the above and are no longer being taught it in school. Instead they say how they were all slave owners (Again not true), and they were all agnostics. In fact the original Declaration of Independence stated the following. "Life, Liberty, and Property" but it was changed to "the Pursuit of Happiness" because they didn't want the southern slave owners to argue that the slaves were property. In fact, I believe it was John Adams that said (roughly) if we do not fight this battle now (In regards to slavery) we will fight it again in 100 yrs.
Funny enough he was right and we fought the civil war under Lincoln (He was an evil republican by the way. lol)
Thomas Jefferson was not religious but he did believe in a Creator. He is the writer of the Declaration of Independence. You know that paper that says,
"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As for the other comments about gun control do you know why each amendment was written exactly how they are? Apparently not.
The 2nd Amendment was to ensure we as a people would never again be ruled over, or invaded by another country.
I could go on and on as to the true reason all the 1st 10 amendments of the constitution were written, but if you aren't interested in it why should I bother. It seems to me everyone wants to "Interpret" the amendments to what suits them, when the original writers themselves wrote what they meant them to be.
The founding fathers weren't these career politicians we have now that write laws that they can't even understand. The Bill of Rights was written in plain English so NO ONE could misinterpret it! Just like John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence was to ensure King George was able to read his signature without his glasses on.
We may need to interpret the laws created since the original Constitution was written, but the Bill of Rights is not up for interpretation it just is. They are rights given to us from above not from man.
We do not give rights to each other. We are born with those rights and no one has the right to take them from us.
I'm merely a history buff tired of hearing all this BS about what the founding fathers were, what they meant when they wrote our country's most important documents, etc,etc, etc...
This is from wikipedia in regards to the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."[12] George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, in part to protest its lack of a Bill of Rights.[13]
See the full write up here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Re:In case there is any confusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
We may need to interpret the laws created since the original Constitution was written, but the Bill of Rights is not up for interpretation it just is. They are rights given to us from above not from man. We do not give rights to each other. We are born with those rights and no one has the right to take them from us.
I'm sure you are taking a bit of artistic licence when you say this - but I think it disservice to the great achievement that man really did give each other these rights (not anyone above). This is an incredibly important point that we should be very much proud of. Secondly its unrealistic to expect the applications of the bill of rights to be obvious in all situations, which is why they are interpreted by the courts. Note that many things we take for granted about them (such as them applying to states as well as federal Govt.) were not originally intended.
It seems to me everyone wants to "Interpret" the amendments to what suits them, when the original writers themselves wrote what they meant them to be.
And I assume you are the go-to man for this :P ? Everyone complains about judicial activism only when it goes against their ideas, but in reality because the bill of rights is not 3000 pages long and list every possible situation any adaptation to a novel situation will be an interpretation. Given that the constitution itself specifies for this to occur I cannot imagine that it goes against any founding father intent.
Re:In case there is any confusion... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that relevant? Are you one of those people who talks about "Jew-movies"?
Or, to put it a different way, even if the entirety of the creation team of a "X" are Wiccans, does that make X Wiccan automatically? Wouldn't it need to relate to Wicca in some way first?
The Pilgrams came over here because they didn't want to live in Amsterdam... the reason they went from England to Amsterdam was to avoid the CoE's persecution. They then enacted laws requiring relgious conformity that went orders of magnitude further than the CoE's did, eventually driving people to "Rogue's Island" (Now Rhodes Island).
In other words, hardly the best role models. They did a good job protecting us from witches however.
Locke wrote "property". When the Founding Fathers cribbed him, they used "Pursuit of Happiness". Slavery was explicitly tabled for some number of years, a strategic decision without which there would be no USA now... maybe morally dubious, but the country needed to be cohesive before it could address the situation.
The Bill of Rights is vague, and requires interpretation. How do you define a "reasonable" search? What makes a punishment "cruel"? "unusual"? To what type of council are you entitled? What does it mean to "establish religion"? What type of arms can be born and how regulated must the militia be?
And, I fail to see the "misinterpretation" you purport to concerning the treaty.
Re:In case there is any confusion... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but "In God We Trust" only appeared on currency after the civil war.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml [ustreas.gov]
E Pluribus Unum is a much better motto, because I don't trust your invisible friend.
http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/unum.html [greatseal.com]
Why omit Newton? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Texas felt it was Newton's time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Texas did, but they were wrong.
When Geordi LaForge is taking Advanced Warp Field Theory at Starfleet Academy, when the Narn and the Centauri are running student exchange programs, it will still be "Newton's time."
When we get the Grand Unification Theory and we're about to Ascend beyond the Stargates we've planted all over, we're still going to teach Newton as a rough-and-ready method for most mundane physics and as a precursor for what came next.
Have you heard about this newfangled math called calculus?
BTW, I'm a Christian too, and excuse me as I go repent of the anger in my heart toward this comment, and beg your forgiveness for the snark in this reply.
Richard Feynman on textbooks (Score:5, Interesting)
No slashdot discussion of the stupidity of textbooks would be complete without a reference to Richard Feynman's little thing on the horribleness of how textbooks get approved [textbookleague.org]. Spoilers: it involves sex, lies, bribery, political cronyism, plagiarism, and other delicious things.
finding less texas-dependent schools (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there an easy way to find schools with curricula that are less dependent on what happens in Texas? I mean, without having to read hundreds of textbooks and do lots of gruesomely painful research on my own (I get enough of that in my day job).
No Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
I was indoctrinated with a liberal public education full of PC bullshit. And the only effect it had on me was a contempt for those who would push their agendas onto me. I ended up being somewhere between libertarian and conservative, with a strong feeling that the state should neither support nor suppress religious beliefs. I'm an atheist myself, but realize that religion is very important to many people. And atheist conservative, I suppose I challenge the narrow view political labels has taken in the last few decades. But I suggest that perhaps it was the Christian Right that made state religion part of a "conservative" platform.
If Texas wants to eliminate liberal bias and insert some neoconservative/christian right bias then so be it. The ideals of neocons and christian right are generally incompatible and it has fractured the Republican Party for many decades. Likely students will see the contradictions and the hypocrisy and make their own choices. With the wild Internet providing easy access to information, and the culture of this new generation being very open and honest about their beliefs (even though they are often outlandishly liberal) I have little doubt in my mind that students will overcome this minor obstacle in propaganda tainted education. The kids who aren't critical thinkers and fall prey to such propaganda would have fallen anyways, to the Church or to social pressures. They are the causalities of our society, and will be integrated into society as taxpayers and ineffective voters.
It's not like Americans haven't had to face insane propaganda mixed in their education. From Commies to Political Correctness, we over came the bullshit.
Re:No Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that most Americans aren't critical thinkers, and it's up to those with some capacity to fix things so that the information is at least accurate and as balanced as possible.
Re:No Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me, is teaching biological evolution teaching liberal bias?
Can't we just go back to the way things were? (Score:5, Informative)
You know, back when it was the US and the Republic of Texas?
Good, let them (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for this. If they want to diminish science and taint history, let 'em.
That'll give my child that much bigger of an advantage in about 15 years when she's applying for jobs. She'll understand the scientific method. She'll know her history. She'll be well educated, while the children from texas will believe that there is no USSR/soviet union.
This works for me.
give my child that much bigger of an advantage (Score:5, Insightful)
Grasshoppa,
Where do you think your child will be living in 15 years? The problem with your "my-kid-will-be-one-eyed-in-the-land-of-the-blind" theory is that those blind people all get a vote on where to point the steering wheel. When they vote to drive the car off a cliff, your daughter and mine will be trapped in the car with them.
Sure, maybe her superior education will make her captain of the ship, but that's not gonna help her much when the crew starts setting explosives against the hull down in the hold because "metal ships are not mentioned in the Bible and are therefore an abomination before the Lord..."
You're arguing that an educated woman in Afghanistan is doing great because she's more employable than the Taliban.
Ridicule can be a powerful force for good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reasonable discussion isn't going to cut it any more. A woman who home-schooled her children because, and I'm quoting exactly here, sending them to public education would be "throwing them into the enemy's flames," i.e. damning them to Hell, has gotten some control over the Texas Board of Education. It's time to unleash the awesome power of ridicule.
Seriously. Look at the proposed changes from the article:
These are not the crackpot fringe. These are people in charge of educating the children of one of the country's largest populations, and who influence education thoughout the country.
We're beyond rational discussion here. Reasonable debate only works when both sides are intellectually honest. How about we begin with Harvard, Princeton, Caltech and MIT dropping all applications from students educated in Texas out of hand? I mean, surely no REAL American would want to send their kid to California or the bastions of the Liberal Elite to be educated?
Time to give Texas back to Mexico (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Time to give Texas back to Mexico (Score:4, Interesting)
Sidelining Jesus as well (Score:4, Informative)
Then again, we're dealing with merchants in the temple here.
A big clue about whether your Church is about worshipping money and power instead of anything else is their attitude to the poor and homeless. The ironic thing is such wide ranging heresy which could not exist without tolerance is incredibly intolerant.
Re:Sidelining Jesus as well (Score:4, Insightful)
The most popular gospel in modern American Christianity is the gospel of wealth. Making money is now a holy act, and the poor deserve what they get because they are lazy and not working hard like God wants them to.
Kompeting with Kansas (Score:5, Funny)
Texas: "We must close the ignorance gap with Kansas!"
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uggghhh! (Score:4, Informative)
I do not remember the attempts at influence of the fundamentalists to be quite so blatant in the past. Perhaps they are becoming emboldened in these times of the Tea Parties.
Re:Why does this sound exactly like the start of.. (Score:4, Interesting)
like the "economic crisis"
Yep, no crisis at all right. Easy to find jobs. We didn't waste billions of taxpayer dollars "bailing out" businesses. Not sure if that was your primary point that it didn't exist, but putting "economic crisis" in quotes seem to indicate it...
or the whole Obama fear.
Because we should all be just happy that we have a president who has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars, supports a supreme court nominee vowed against true freedom of speech and supports unsustainable programs. Right?
I say, the primary target should be to shoot Glenn Beck and close down FOX News ASAP.
News flash. News sources are biased. It isn't new. Look at MSNBC, heck, look at the Guardian which TFA is taken from. The Guardian doesn't even make any claims to be balanced or fair.
Oh and is the new tactic to eliminate anyone with views who you don't agree with now?
Re: These Neo Cons Are Turds in the Punch Bowl (Score:4, Informative)
There is not a real "left" in America. Democrats are not left, they are just slightly left of the Republicans. If you want to know what real leftist ideas look like then read about the Green Party, or the Democratic Socialist Party. If those were viable parties and were winning elections then you could say we have a real right-left divide, right now all we have is right and far right so if you have a problem with either the Democrats or the Republicans then you are saying you don't like conservative ideas - they are both conservative.
Re:Think critically--and READ critically (Score:5, Insightful)
Phew! Thank god you attacked the messenger instead of trying to discuss the subject. Otherwise we might have to discuss the merits of TX rewriting history. Now we can just plug our fingers in our ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA".
Nope, you just have to profess some mainstream faith. Jews and Muslims are easily elected. However public opionion polls state that we atheists are less likely to be elected President than a homosexual.
You'd have an argument if we were only adding such a topic to the curriculum. However, we're also removing Newton, who's still way more important...after all, without his work most of our military advances wouldn't happen.
I'm more bothered that shredding the first amendment is just fine to you, as long as it's your religion.
Re:Think critically--and READ critically (Score:5, Insightful)
"Had" would only apply if we were talking about history. We are not.
In order to get elected to high office in the United States in 2010, you have to profess some mainstream faith.
There is one atheist member of Congress, who avoids discussing religion at all. Polling shows most of his constituents don't know he is an atheist because he has been able to avoid it (it's a very blue district and hasn't seen a serious Republican challenger in a long time).
Re:God help those who follow... (Score:5, Funny)
Warning, do not approach.