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."
How bad could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
How much damage could a poorly educated man from Texas actually cause? It's not like he could become President or something...
Re:How bad could it be? (Score:5, Funny)
Texas Schoolbook Depository (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.
Re:How bad could it be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet, those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor.
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.
Re:How bad could it be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but he's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said that all those who graduate from those schools are poorly educated.
But, if your family is rich enough, yeah, it's quite possible to go all the way through those schools without getting any education at all.
I mean, any that doesn't involve drugs and parties.
If your daddy is paying your full tuition, and giving an extra couple of hundred thousand to the school in endowments, they're not going to flunk you out. When I was in college, we all knew who these people were. Some people were pissed abou
People weren't aware of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
...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.
I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?
Re:People weren't aware of this? (Score:4, Interesting)
And in my opinion, this is second most important part: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." For example: The right to not have your cellphones monitored by Monkeyhead Dubya Bush or Barak Corpseman Obama via the Unpatriotic Act.
Interstate Commerce.
'But', you say, 'It is a...'
Interstate Commerce.
'OK, but surely...'
Interstate Commerce.
It's the Wildcard of the Constitution, and it's current interpretation by the SCOTUS makes all the protections in the Bill of Rights and the enumeration of powers meaningless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's rather that religious people get very excited over a bunch of issues so out of this world that nobody else sees where the problem could possibly be, which makes it seem like there's ONLY rabid idiots, while in fact they are a very small minority. Rabid idiots win over laid-back gentlemen everytime, see nazism and russian revolution.
Refreshing! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Refreshing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can't we just have education books just present multiple popular theories along with the pros and cons of each?
Do you expect students to carry the new 10,000-page science volume entitled "Things That Aren't Science" home and back each night?
Because there are thousands of popular theories about thousands of things that Aren't Science. Bothering to mention any of them in a science class distracts from the limited time where students are able to learn about . . . science.
Re:Refreshing! (Score:5, Insightful)
But where are you learning about the wrongs of these narrow-minded zealots? Other narrow-minded zealots on the opposite extreme? I can agree that there are a lot of crazy christian narrow-minded zealots, but I think there are just as many anti-religion narrow-minded zealots. Why can't we just have education books just present multiple popular theories along with the pros and cons of each?
1) Not all popular beliefs are equal. A popular belief that the holocaust never happened, or a popular belief that the president is elected by popular vote, or a popular belief that having sex "just once" can't get someone pregnant should not be taught because it's simply wrong.
2) How you teach those "popular beliefs" is itself extremenly biased. "Of People and Pandas" supposedly teached about evolution, and abstinance-only programs supposedly teach about birth control.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
I asked a lawyer who believed in this, pre-market crash, if they believed in a "living mortgage." Why is the Constitution the only legal document we do that to?
Anyone who wants to teach that is going for a particular point of view. Why is the opposite view nefarious but this one all sweetness and light?
This whole summary is ignorant. Everyone is pushing a point of view. It has to be somebody's.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, "living document" was definitely a rhetorical fraud or at least a rhetorical mistake made at some point. The constitution is valueless if it can be simply interpreted into the mores and norms of whatever the current age happens to be rather than debated and amended into the modern age as the framers intended.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, "living document" was definitely a rhetorical fraud or at least a rhetorical mistake made at some point. The constitution is valueless if it can be simply interpreted into the mores and norms of whatever the current age happens to be rather than debated and amended into the modern age as the framers intended.
Which means that there's no way to understand what the constitution says in the first place.
"right to bear arms". What is an "arm"? Could the founders have intended it to cover a weapon they hadn't conceived of existing.
"right to feel secure in person and property". Does that include data on your hard-drive? What if we invent a scanner that can perform an invasive search without entering your house? Are you secure or not? The constitution doesn't mention scanners (or wire taps, or computer sniffing, or infra-red cameras, or WiFi hacking equipment, or laser mics).
It's "living" when it's applied to a new situation that did not in the past exist. The same as all laws (or do we need to make new copyright laws every time someone comes up with a new storage device?)
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's consensus about what the Founders meant when they said something, there should not be difficulty in amending the constitution if its language is thought to be ambiguous. If there's no consensus, then it must be assumed that the Constitution means what it says. So yes, nuclear weapons are "arms." If you want to amend the constitution to forbid citizens from owning nukes, it should not be difficult to do so, since it's likely there's popular consensus on that matter.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification. In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.
The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.
As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.
What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:4, Insightful)
Thank you, I was just going to say, many mortgages are getting modified right now. Most contracts explicitly state how you can change the terms of the contract, which is exactly what the constitution does.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is no vagueness at all. The constitution is very simple and easy to read. Anyone and their mother can read the constitution and know exactly what it means.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that even one of those phrases are 100% unambiguous, you are the one who needs to take remedial English classes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the bill of rights themselves were passed to specify partly what the government was protecting and to put further limitations on what the government can demand, it's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.
Not to mention, the militia was, as I understand, at the time, often any male of age able to shoot a rifle. The militia (well regulated, meaning well-armed and provided for) was a statement of purpose on why "the people" must be allowed to keep and bear arms, as it was envisioned that the militias (remember, statehood was much bigger back then than it is now) would defend the local states from a potentially tyrannical federal government.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:4, Insightful)
The context of the quote can be interpret that they ARE talking about people in the militia. Why mention the militia at ALL if everyone can have a gun, It's redundant.NO, I am not advocating an interpretation , simple pointing out how a real logical debate can start up.Just using logic, that statement can be taken apart pretty well.I would argue NO interpretation should be made by anyone who hasn't studied the forming of the constitution and the culture of the time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A mortgage isn't a living document because it is a contract between to organizations, a lender and a lendee. You could argue that the constitution is likewise a contract between the government and the governed, so where's the difference? The constitution lays out in it's contract exactly what needs to take place in order for the contract to be amended. Most notably, the contract can be amended without the support of, or indeed in opposition to, the government (realistically this would never happen but it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one has ever argued that the Constitution can't be amended.
The problem is that the Constitution is simply ignored.
Re:"Living Constitution" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the Constitution was deliberately designed to act as Chains upon the U.S. Government and its leaders, and politicians don't like to be chained. They like to be free to act and control whatever they want. So what better way to achieve that goal than to pretend the Constitution is not a chain, but instead a piece of silly putty they can mold into any shape they please (or more recently - ignore completely). That gives the DC politicians the ability to do any damn thing that pleases them.
IMHO they (and we) have forgotten what the Democratic Party's founder (Thom. Jefferson) called the most important part of the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains "fixed" for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it. Then it changes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We don't live in an 18th century agrarian society anymore. If you don't want it to be "living", and you want to interpret every word with strict literalism, then it will have to be revised and expanded to properly define a government's actual real world role modern life and technology. It would probably take at least couple of thousand pages to do the job properly.
(Note that it has never been taken literally since day one anyway. For example, for many decades slavery was allowed in spite of the fact that it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I wish other legal documents could be amended, too!
I own an automobile, and I think that the law, passed 1904, should be changed so that I don't have to drive under 5mph with someone walking ahead of me waving a red flag...
But, I guess, that's just my "point of view", and I should accept all others as equally valid...
Nothing new here. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worth revisiting the lesson of the sixties that the Hippies got right, such as not to trust the government and that the purpose of public education is to lie to you.
Students should regard any political lesson taught in school as propaganda, should never trust their teachers, an in general fucking hate the government. Bible Thumpers have always sought to rule by infiltration and dominionism.
Know this, fight back, agitate others to fight back, and above all disregard anything any religionist says to defend their superstition. We don't respect Scientology for obvious reasons, and there is no reason any other superstition should get a pass, especially on a geek site. We are modern people, and modern people don't need gods.
Re:Nothing new here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because rejecting everything wholesale is so much better than accepting it wholesale.
Having a reasonable mind that can think through issues and make decisions for oneself - that is what we should strive for. Precious few high schools teach this, however.
Re:Nothing new here. (Score:5, Insightful)
This documentation you speak of was written 90 years after this supposed person died. There are TWO references to this person you call Jesus in literature of the time that are believed to have not been altered by early Christians. (it was a fad in 300-600AD to rewrite history to insert religious dogma, it was actually supported and encouraged by the early Christian church mostly due to Constantine's "control everything" influence) In fact this documentation you speak of wouldn't be admissible in any modern court because it's heresay that's gone through at least 3 generations before it was written down. That is if it wasn't all concocted later by someone by the name of Paul (who used to be called Saul) seeking to exert his domination of this new religion. And it certainly would be suspect if Constantine had adopted a favored sect of Christianity and used his power as Emperor to destroy all the other sects of Christianity and burn all the conflicting teachings. And questions wouldn't be raised if someone found all those older teachings stored in some cave by the dead sea (maybe call them the dead sea scrolls) to hide them from the Romans searching out all conflicting dogma to destroy it.
The council of Trent compiled the Bible in 300A.D. in the village of Trent Italy. This council was tasked with taking over 1300 religious letters and teachings and compiling them into a single text. Controlled by the Sect of early Christians that Constantine adopted they selected the works and teachings familiar and supported by them and destroyed all the rest. The dead sea scrolls discovered several decades ago point to the vast collection of works which were scoured to gain the works of the bible. Later in the middle ages King James commissioned a translation of the Bible. Taking the Catholic work they removed 13 books, mostly by uncredited authors (which is silly as Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are pen names where the author was unknown and at least two of the books have multiple authors) and issued this as the King James Bible. As a modern translation of the Bible (at the time) the King James version was highly successful and adopted by most English speaking Christian sects as the "Bible", ignoring the existence of the original Catholic bible.
So your wonderful documentation is heresay that's been edited at LEAST 2 times by various parties not including the changes in translation. This doesn't even include the changes the Catholic church made in the book from 300A.D to the King James translation or any of the subsequent revisions. Your documentation isn't documentation, it's fiction with a historical setting. Jesus wasn't the son of god, he was a Jewish separatist that spoke out about the separation of the Jewish state from the Roman Empire (something Rome took very seriously and that got entire ethnic groups nailed to crosses). Saul/Paul created the entire virgin birth/resurrection myth single handily more than 70 years after Jesus was nailed to a cross for speaking out about leaving the roman empire. He never knew Jesus, never met him, never even met anyone that had met Jesus but his tale of virgin birth and life story is the basis of the new testament. Had he lived in a modern era he would have been committed to a mental institution along with many of the early Christians. In fact John the Revelator would have been that scary homeless dude preaching about the end of the world that exists in every major city. These are the people you idiolize if you are Christian, they are your prophets and they are no different than Joseph Smith other than that some of them were clearly eating the wrong kind of mushrooms.
Establishment clause smackdown (Score:5, Interesting)
All it will take is a suit that the school board violates civil liberties.
I wish it could go further. I wish that provably willful violations of civil liberties were treated as treason.
Then don't get a Christian jury! (Score:3, Interesting)
"I wish that provably willful violations of civil liberties were treated as treason."
Christians regard any government practice that is not Christian as a violation of their civil rights to impose de facto theocracy by dominionism.
Seeing a problem and missing the point. (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of "academic qualification" (Most people with the paper don't have the ethical or logical capability to be truly considered qualified), the Texas school board was responding to its own concerns about the insertion of bias into textbooks.
Textbooks are already biased. How many people are around that are willing to stand against bias in ALL directions? I'm sick of bickering between defining "unbiased" as "suiting my own personal bias".
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:So Ignorant It Hurts (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion.
On the contrary, that statement proves how much Jefferson loved religion. He loved it so much he wanted to protect every kind of religion and every diversity of religion out there by not allowing the government to indoctrinate people into one mandated religion. I'm not changing anything, the Bill of Rights was frame to protect all religions, not hate them by promoting only one of them.
children at risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the problem. The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite. A hypocrite is one who does things in a crowd to make others believe he or she has faith. Here is a famous verse of prayer.
Mathew 6:5-6"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
We also know the verses on giving money to be seen. The idea is that one does these things because they are in our heart, not to gain profit. And we are putting our children in jeopardy when we ask them to do these things we know are wrong, such as acting like hypocrites.
The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith. No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true. No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right. This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing. And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children. They can't. So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.
In some ways I agree with this. If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited. What I disagree with is making all the rest of us suffer. Sure, a parent may have a right to screw up their own child, but that does not mean they have the right to screw up everyone else's. The parent can home school, turn off the TV, but there is no reason that those of us who are responsible should have to suffer because a few are irresponsible. It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.
Re:children at risk (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points: +1 insightful. You are especially spot-on about these people's lack of faith. I pity the poor creationist whose weak faith can't survive the scientific realities of evolution. Someone with a real, abiding faith in God wouldn't be affected by evolution or other scientific theories - they would just adapt. Christianity survived the discovery that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth, and it can survive evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. Again, my sig (quoted below in case I change it) seems relevant as well...
"People who need govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in the power of its message."
Re:children at risk (Score:5, Insightful)
I myself had most of my primary and secondary education at Roman Catholic school, and one of the things they taught us in religious classes is that the conflict between science and religion is completely bogus. Science is there to answer the how of the universe, whereas religion is there to answer the why. It is unimportant that the ancient Sumerian cosmology reflected in the Old Testament creation stories is at odds with the findings of modern-day science, that's not the point. The point behind the creation story is not to explain how man and the universe came to be, but rather why they came to be, and their purpose. It seems that this was how the Catholic Church came to resolve its once-turbulent relationship to science since the days of Galileo. As Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI has said:
Further, he says in a book published in 2008:
The Catholic Church seems to have come a long way since the 17th Century. Unfortunately, it looks like fundamentalist Christians in the United States are all set to repeat many of the mistakes made by the Catholic Church back then, but with far greater matters at stake than the life and reputation of an old scientist.
Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following (Score:5, Insightful)
Two immediate responses are prompted by this article...
First is to call to mind the fate of the Muslim civilization in the second millennium. The Muslims kept the lights on during the Dark Ages. They're the reason we know about the ancient Greeks. In those days, science was considered good, because it was discovery of God's world and ways. Somewhere about the middle of the second millennium the Muslim civilization encountered other pressures (like invasions) and turned their backs on science in favor of religious dogma. (Don't know if there was cause and effect there, coincidental timing, or some other relationship.) They've never been at the forefront of civilization since. We're starting to do the same thing here in the US. One key part of science is to face the world truthfully, whatever it tells you, and deal with it. Religion can help you deal with it. But when you impose religion as a "truth filter" between you and the real world, you've lost it.
Second, a more tactical response, is to quit following Texas' lead on textbook purchases. Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?
you will lose this argument every time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:you will lose this argument every time. (Score:5, Insightful)
you refer to people as "dumbass Texans".. if you're so smart, why not reason with them
Because he's smart enough to know that no amount of intelligent, thoughtfull discussion can sway these people from their emotional beliefs. We're talking about people who go "if evolution was true, why would there still be monkeys?" as if they'd pulled some irrefutable argument instead of profoundly ignorant tripe. You can't reason with them: they're immune to it.
Re:you will lose this argument every time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama does this every day from the highest bullypullpit in the land. You know why you can't do it? Because they're not "for" anything, they're only against Democrats. Every time he concedes a point. Every time he gives Republicans what they want. Suddenly it's not what they want anymore. You wanht lower taxes? You want balanced budgets? Well, sure, but not if a Democrat's doing it. If a Democrat's doing it, it's going to destroy the very fabric of our nation.
The reason that you can't reason with the textbook manufacturers is that they honestly believe that if they somehow "fix" the textbooks there won't be any more Democrats in the United States and it will be one homogenous white Christian nation. The failure of reality to match up with that expectation means they have not gone far enough and must keep going. It's not a matter of reality. It's a matter of frustration at not being able to fix the world using the ideals they have faith in.
Most Christians in Texas who are aware of the situation think these people are ridiculously extreme, but it's nearly impossible to get rid of them.
Re:you will lose this argument every time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Bush made a case for attacking Iraq? Bush tried to get others to go along with him, and when all alliances failed he attacked anyway. What Bush did was to not build a consensus and then do something anyway. War is a horrible example because it's something the commander in chief can do anytime for any reason, and then congress feels like they need to fund it because people's lives are on the line. It would be more appropriate to correlate this with Bush's prescription drug bill. Which if proposed by a Democrat would have been socialism.
The problem is that we have a Republic. Obama can do what the majority wants and still be defeated in the Senate because a bunch of small states get equal representation. Slate just did an interesting article on filibusters. It turns out that 60% of the time when Democrats have filibustered they've represented the majority of Americans. When Republicans have filibustered they represented the majority only 3% of the time. Repbulicans are better at playing politics because they rarely represent a majority.
Let's look at Gingrich's stupid ideas:
Make insurance affordable - In bill
Make health insurance portable - Already exists. Called HSA. I have one. Only saves you money if you stay well. People don't like them.
Meet the needs of the chronically ill - He seems to be in the weeds. Smells like socialism though.
Allow doctors and patients to control costs - Really? We lower prices by letting doctors charge medicare whatever they want? He obviously thinks we're morons. So doctors can charge whatever they want as long as cost to the government doesn't rise. Ok, government costs are rising currently, how does this help?
Don't cut Medicare - Really going out on a limb by saying not to cut Medicare. Also advocating Socialism. But hey, it's ok when Republicans do it.
Protect early retirees - HSA again! Hey, look we can save health insurance with an unpopular program that already exists! Because the free market is always right, unless you're talking about why no one's buying our HSAs. The best part about HSAs? You can lose it all in the stock market and then have the government either bail out millions of retirees or add them to Social Security during what would assume would be an economic downturn! How can people resist?!? I mean think about what would have happened if you had an HSA and contracted cancer during 2008! Good times!
Inform consumers - Sure. Sounds good. Might save money in the long term, but not in the short term.
Eliminate junk lawsuits - In the current health care bill. Also implemented in Texas and not doing jack, shit. But hey, just because Republican policies have failed repeatedly doesn't mean shouldn't keep trying to ram them through. Because when you're wrong you're right. Am I right? Oh, I'm a Democrat. I'm wrong. Sorry, I forgot. Which is why even though Obama put this in the bill as a concession to Republicans they're all still pretending it's not in the bill. If the bill passes they'll then say that the fact that it doesn't work is because Obama passed it. Way ahead of you guys.
Stop health-care fraud - Fraud and Waste. Waste and Fraud. Yeah. That's the problem. I'm all for this. But so is everybody. Also we should get people to stop doing drugs and to not cheat on their taxes...
Make medical breakthroughs accessible to patients - No. We're not getting rid of the FDA. They're pathetically toothless as it is. This is a horrible idea. Great idea for selling untested snake oil to the public and artificially inflating stock prices. When coupled with Bullet 8 you can bring untested treatments to market, sell them for top dollar, and cash out without any risk of monetary damages. I've got to hand it to you Republicans. You're fantastic at creating bubbles that harm the public.
Republicans have jack that is not available on the market today. And you know what the market has said? Republicans your ideas suck. Why do your ideas suck? Because they don't work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be giving them the credibility they want. They are not our equals. The only reason they do this is to annoy us, to try to force the educated and influential to pay them the attention they crave.
They are only "winning" in the sense in that they are playing their roles as pawns in a larger game effectively.
The irony is this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that, some would argue that the present "living document" and history as given in textbooks from the 1970s and later was done by a concerted left wing effort to make the country swing left.
Instead, it backfired miserably.
My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state.. and as I remember flipping through pictures of poor people doing nothing, along came Ronald Reagan, to say that, well, it was all a bunch of crap.
Propaganda for kids doesn't work, because, the truthful documents are there. The truth is this: The wingers have this much of a point: The constitution is a strict document that defines powers given to the government, not, giving people rights, and the framers did base their ideas on Locke, that, because we've all got souls, we've all got rights. But what wingers also neglect to mention is that the framers were decidedly against much of their agenda too.
The founding fathers, in particular, want a standing army or a standing military at all. Indeed, up until the 1900s, the USA was barely a 2nd rate military power and looked on European military spending as a colossal sort of stupidity.
The founding fathers envisioned no federal power to regulate drugs or marriage or anything else. They would tax whiskey, and that was about it, and that was only to pay down the debt from the revolutionary war.
Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.
The founding fathers were libertarians.
Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories. When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc. Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was. But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns. No ones 'truth' was any better than another. The scientific method was no more valid than animism. Everyone got their own truth.
Well, guess what, folks? Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'. Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite. That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.
Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Age? (Score:5, Insightful)
I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as):
-How to think carefully, logically.
-How to search.
-How to formulate good questions.
-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to
influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do
that.
How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.
Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources
that we have available to us at a mouse click today.
The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to
parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.
Open it up! (Score:3, Insightful)
This (and other reasons) is why I believe public school textbooks should be free/open source (as in speech, as well as as in beer, aside from a nominal small printing/distribution charge - which will not be needed once all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers) and wiki-editable with review before publishing. Get the textbook companies out of the business of making massive profits off the backs of our school system, and involve the public in the education process. Find a way to review that will weaken agenda-driven edits.
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.
I just downloaded a great physics book (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Obligatory Richard Feynman on Textbooks (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.gorgorat.com/#49 [gorgorat.com]
After the war, physicists were often asked to go to Washington and give
advice to various sections of the government, especially the military. What
happened, I suppose, is that since the scientists had made these bombs that
were so important, the military felt we were useful for something.
Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate various
weapons for the army, and I wrote a letter back which explained that I was
only a theoretical physicist, and I didn't know anything about weapons for
the army.
The army responded that they had found in their experience that
theoretical physicists were very useful to them in making decisions, so
would I please reconsider?
I wrote back again and said I didn't really know anything, and doubted
I could help them.
Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army, which proposed a
compromise: I would come to the first meeting, where I could listen and see
whether I could make a contribution or not. Then I could decide whether I
should continue.
I said I would, of course. What else could I do?
I went down to Washington and the first thing that I went to was a
cocktail party to meet everybody. There were generals and other important
characters from the army, and everybody talked. It was pleasant enough.
One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad that
physicists were advising the military because it had a lot of problems. One
of the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can't
go very far. So the question was how to refuel them as they're going along.
Now this guy had the idea that, since the physicists can get energy out of
uranium, could I work out a way in which we could use silicon dioxide --
sand, dirt -- as a fuel? If that were possible, then all this tank would
have to do would be to have a little scoop underneath, and as it goes along,
it would pick up the dirt and use it for fuel! He thought that was a great
idea, and that all I had to do was to work out the details. That was the
kind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the meeting the next
day.
I went to the meeting and noticed that some guy who had introduced me
to all the people at the cocktail party was sitting next to me. He was
apparently some flunky assigned to be at my side at all times. On my other
side was some super general I had heard of before.
At the first session of the meeting they talked about some technical
matters, and I made a few comments. But later on, near the end of the
meeting, they began to discuss some problem of logistics, about which I knew
nothing. It had to do with figuring out how much stuff you should have at
different places at different times. And although I tried to keep my trap
shut, when you get into a situation like that, where you're sitting around a
table with all these "important people" discussing these "important
problems," you can't keep your mouth shut, even if you know nothing
whatsoever! So I made some comments in that discussion, too.
During the next coffee break the guy who had been assigned to shepherd
me around said, "I was very impressed by the things you said during the
discussion. They certainly were an important contribution."
I stopped and thought about my "contribution" to the logistics proble
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.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
One is science the other is religion. Guess which one does not belong in a schoolbook?
On not throwing out babies with bathwather (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion has a huge impact on many aspects of society: language, culture, politics -- even science. Religion could certainly be a legitimate topic of academic study, done properly. For example, I doubt it is possible to truly understand the history of the United States without understanding the role of religious belief. It's just too intertwined.
Your point about people trying to pass religion off as if it were science is well taken, however. Bugs me when people try to pass humanism off as science, too.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
"After all, the initial singularity from which the universe sprung had to come from somewhere. "
Nice asserted conclusion. Asserted conclusions are not proof, but thanks for trying!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Intelligent design is a misnomer, either it was idiotic design or none at all.
For examples look no further than your hips or your knees, they are ill adept at walking upright.
One can be tested the other cannot. One is a scientific theory the other philosophy.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it a little harder. You're having to code up the program for an entire universe. At some point, you need to create life. Do you create eighty million different forms of life, each with a completely different set of programming, or do you take advantage of code reuse and only change the bits that matter? I mean ostensibly yes, you could pull that functionality down into the subclass from the superclass, but there's a r
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Funny)
A 'god' or an 'intelligent designer' does not have time, money, or resource constraints to worry about as developers do. They are always portrayed as omnipotent beings which could have easily designed a man w/o nipples.
I think God outsourced some of the work to lesser, overworked deities who took shortcuts. That gave God the time to design really awesome things like supernovas and pulsars and rainbows and wolverines.
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.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Insightful)
something goes wrong
Omnipotent designer says what?
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
And why is that precisely? And if the Universe requires a prime mover, then why doesn't the prime mover? And if you're going to assert that the prime mover is exempt from the very logic you claim makes the prime move necessary, then why can't I apply Occam's Razor and declare the universe can have that property you claim for the prime mover, and thus declare the prime mover unnecessary?
Or, more to the point, why would this posited singularity be bound by causality?
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Interesting)
But you're the one who made the claim, and I quote:
All you said is you know some college profs who believed in God.
So, I'm asking you to back up your claim. If you can't, then why on Earth would you claim it?
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what religion is all about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Naw, some dude with a beard and a toga just stamped out humanity with an injection mold. Yutzes.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Insightful)
If these college professors are so willing to make an argument with such an obvious flaw, they're not terribly smart after all. Don't put your faith in people smarter than you when your own brain can easily tell you that their arguments are fallacious.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh BS. The Prime Mover argument is, first and foremost, a philosophical and metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. Science can only go on the evidence points. At the moment, the "cause" of the Universe is not known, nor is it certain that the Universe even required one. The question "What caused the Universe" may not even actually make any sense (as Hawking said, "It's like asking 'what's north of the North Pole?'")
But if one is going to try to assert a logical necessity of a Prime Mover, then one has to deal with the logical conundrums that that claim makes.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Interesting)
So let's remove gravity, most of physics, and genetics from the science classroom as well. Those are all theories. You don't prove a theory. You find evidence either for or against it. As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it. But being as ALL of the evidence gathered since Darwin was pontificating points to Evolution being the mechanism by which life changes, science (and the science classroom) should stick with that.
It doesn't matter what an individual scientist believes. That's immaterial, an argument from authority which is of no worth. I can point to priests who believe in evolution. Shit, the CATHOLIC CHURCH [wikipedia.org] is ok with evolution. That is NOT a reason to accept it. The reason to accept it is that the facts we have about genetics and fossils and such all point to Evolution.
The only reason you would have even posted this is because you're ignorant of science, which makes your opinion of it uninformed and therefore worthless.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm hostile because people want to throw out Evolution and put forth an "alternative theory". Go ahead and believe in a God. I don't care. The point is that Evolution is a valid, well-supported scientific theory, AND THERE IS NO CREDIBLE CHALLENGE TO THE EVIDENCE. None. Whatsoever. Period, end of story.
Go ahead and pontificate about a prime mover, a God, whatever. That has NOTHING to do with teaching of the mechanism of Evolution in a science classroom. Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, or the universe. Don't say "teach the controversy" because there is no valid controversy. There are only idiots wanting to force the government to support their religion, and scientists.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. More than 99 of biologist believes in it. Anything that gets that level of acceptance is considered a FACT by scientists.
They may also believe in a God, but that does NOT mean they believe in Intelligent design. If in fact they do believe in Intelligent Design, that still does NOT mean they think it is science. They are all more than smart enough to recognize Intelligent Design is a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Your problem is that you ignorantly believe several blatantly false theories:
1. Only science counts. No. You can have a belief that is not science without it being invalidated. My religion is not invalidated merely because it is not science.
2. Science does not have rules. No. Science is based on the idea of testability. If something can not be falsified, then it is not science. Period. If it can be proven false, then only then is it science. You must propose a test, then do the test and then ABIDE by the test.
Intelligent design is inherently unfalsifiable. People that believe in it will never disbelieve it no matter what you say or do. The very power of God means he can do things that we can't do. He can ineffect CHEAT at any test he wants to. (I.E. He can plant dinosaur bones and make them look like they are million years old. He can create a whole set of fake dead bones that illustrate man's evolution from ape to man. Etc. etc.) That means it is NOT science. It can't ever be science.
Yes, people can believe in Intelligent Design, but that is never science, that is RELIGION.
The problem is a bunch of lieing shmucks that want to teach their personal religion and pretend it is science. That is against the highest laws of the United States of America.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that has never been proven.
This is the biggest fallacy that ID/Creationists propogate about science. It does not matter if evolution/the big bang haven't been "proven". The question is which of these is a scientific model that can be used to make statements about how the world works and make predictions to some degree of accuracy.
The Ptolemaic model of the universe was shown to be wrong, but it was science, because it claimed to predict the world worked a certain (measurable) way and it was shown to be inaccurate. But for thousands of years it was accurate enough to be useful. Newton developed a model that was more accurate and Einstein a model that was yet more accurate.
Someone will come along some day and develop a model of the universe that is even more accurate than Einstein's, but that will not mean that Einstein's model wasn't science or that the new model is "truth".
On the other hand, you cannot use the Bible to make accurate predictions about when to plant your crops, how the planets move around the sun, or what makes characteristics propogate from parents to children. This is why intelligent design is not an alternative form of science. It's not even a matter of whether intelligent design is true and evolution is wrong. Intelligent design cannot be used to do useful science. Evolution, even if ultimately wrong, can be used to make the most accurate models of the way things work.
If you don't want to treat intelligent design as religion, that's fine. Teach it in philosophy. But it is not science.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Interesting)
Asimov wrote a perfect tract on this here. [tufts.edu] A relevant quote:
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
Or beyond that, why do we even have organs? I always felt that an intelligent designer would have just created us as walking, talking bags of magical life made from life cubes or something. Whenever I ask creationists why I have an appendix or a gall bladder or why, out of all the temperatures in the universe, I can only live within a tiny range of them, or out of the entire EM spectrum, I can only see a tiny sliver of it, or why leukemia exists, the only answer I get is 'God made it that way'. Seriously? All powerful? All knowing? That's why people have to poop? God wanted them to?
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax dollars.
Re:Christians take this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
No, one offers testable theories the other just magic. The fact that something cannot yet be explained is not reason to start assuming magic, fairies, unicorns and the sky wizard are all real.
Science is not the search for truth, just facts. If you want truth you should seek out philosophy.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Informative)
It's ZEUS, you FUCKING HEATHEN. ZEUS. MAY YOU YET FEEL HIS THUNDERBOLTS. SHEESH.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
def. Religion - a large popular cult
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.
That's true and great (says the Christian), but that just means there's zero reason to have Creationism (or its bullshit offspring, Intelligent Design) taught in science class. So, not what they're trying to do.
Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
Wait, what fucking law are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can't endorse candidates and remain tax-exempt (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some people believe that the world is flat, too. The 'some people' rubric flatly flies in the face of the fact that faith-based (Genesis-based) creationism doesn't agree at all with evidence that science has found. Trying to mosh the two contrasting theories together makes little sense. What these Texans are trying to do is to blithely shove their 'faith' down other people's throats as fact. What are the facts? I'm happy to have presented, both sides of the evidence to children and let them understand both.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:4, Interesting)
CrazyJim said:
> Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.
What? If sit here all day and come up with an explanation of how Hansel & Gretel can coexist with evolution, it still doesn't make it true.
Oh, and in your "long day theory" you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "24 hours". The 24 is mere convention.
> As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended.
Sure, as long as things aren't changed, they stay the same.
And the people wanting separation of church and state are not "Christian enemies." It is this siege mentality that keeps the fundamentalists afraid to venture outside the flock, and engenders such divisive language.
And the point being covered up is that the US Constitution has well-defined mechanisms to change it. Some people consider that to be its genius.
Re:A Christian's take (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"
Article VI:
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Why wouldn't The Founders want religous tests for public office?
Why is The U.S. Constitution thought by some to be an infallible document, when The Founders themselves recognized its imperfection and defined a process for amending it to fix bugs?
Why would a rational person argue with a person who simply "believes" stuff without any basis in reason?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
That freedom is only abridged by the choice of the church. Churches may speak all the politics they want from the pulpit and enjoy the full benefits of the Constitution as long as they pay taxes on their revenue like the rest of us (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17). One could argue that by indulging in tax-exempt status, any church is ignoring the teachings of Jesus to acknowlege the earthly government that God has put in place (1 Timothy 2:1-2). I believe that, in order to help churches thrive financialy, an ins
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
No. The long day theory doesn't dismiss the account of creation, so "original sin" can stay. Furthermore, "original sin" isn't really necessary to Christianity.
I need to hear about this sect of Christianity that doesn't subscribe to Original Sin. Jesus was a big deal because he was a blood sacrifice to cleanse humanity of Sin. Without that, what else is there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.