Conservatives put stamp on Texas textbooks

[MikeHoncho]

"when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

yes they hated religion so much that they just HAD to mention GOD in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. such athiests to suggest we get our rights from God.

 

[manifold]

Ok, I've read the article and the comments people have posted on both sides and I kind of find myself ambivalent about this.

It's not feasible to teach children every damn thing there is to know about history, so at some point you have to prioritize. It's not like this curriculum contains mis-information. They've simply chosen to prioritize in a way that strongly favors conservative ideals. If that's a reflection of the state, then so be it. I have no plans to send my kids to school in that backwater state anyway.

 

[DiamondDave]

MentalMidget just has to yell and scream... irregardless...

Quoted for the shear fucking ironic hilarity!

And I use informal terms all the time... and if I remember correctly from lass, regardless and irregardless are terms that though seeming different, mean the same thing... with irregardless being an 'improper' term

Then again... though I am an electrical engineer by trade and training.. I am no English major... thank God

 

[xotoxi]

MentalMidget just has to yell and scream... irregardless...

Quoted for the shear fucking ironic hilarity!

Irregardless is the best non-word!

I also like a whole nother.

 

[uscitizen]

Ok, I've read the article and the comments people have posted on both sides and I kind of find myself ambivalent about this.

It's not feasible to teach children every damn thing there is to know about history, so at some point you have to prioritize. It's not like this curriculum contains mis-information. They've simply chosen to prioritize in a way that strongly favors conservative ideals. If that's a reflection of the state, then so be it. I have no plans to send my kids to school in that backwater state anyway.

I think the Texas text books are used in several other states as well.

 

[manifold]

Ok, I've read the article and the comments people have posted on both sides and I kind of find myself ambivalent about this.

It's not feasible to teach children every damn thing there is to know about history, so at some point you have to prioritize. It's not like this curriculum contains mis-information. They've simply chosen to prioritize in a way that strongly favors conservative ideals. If that's a reflection of the state, then so be it. I have no plans to send my kids to school in that backwater state anyway.

I think the Texas text books are used in several other states as well.

Not mine.

 

[Father Time]

"when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

yes they hated religion so much that they just HAD to mention GOD in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. such athiests to suggest we get our rights from God.

The man who wrote the declaration was Thomas Jefferson he also crafted this Virginia law
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

which says that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind" (emphasis mine)

 

[Political Junky]

Jefferson edited the Bible for his own use. He omitted all of Jesus's miracles.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is democracy in the Bible?

When did we actually need something to exist in the bible for us to use it?

If we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, where in the Bible did democracy come from? Representative government? What did Jesus ever teach about the formation of a government? The writing of a Constitution?

 

[ihopehefails]

Where is democracy in the Bible?

When did we actually need something to exist in the bible for us to use it?

If we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, where in the Bible did democracy come from? Representative government? What did Jesus ever teach about the formation of a government? The writing of a Constitution?

I guess if you are a victim of collectivist thinking then the term christian nation takes on a certain meaning that we are all christians and can't choose something else without sacrificing our national identity but normal people think that it means that the free choice of most people created a nation where christian values dominate.

 

[ihopehefails]

"when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

yes they hated religion so much that they just HAD to mention GOD in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. such athiests to suggest we get our rights from God.

The man who wrote the declaration was Thomas Jefferson he also crafted this Virginia law
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

which says that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind" (emphasis mine)

1) That was taken out of context which has not comprehendable meaning

2) He mentions God-given rights

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens"

3) He mentions natural law many times

such act will be an infringement of natural right

 

[manifold]

When did we actually need something to exist in the bible for us to use it?

If we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, where in the Bible did democracy come from? Representative government? What did Jesus ever teach about the formation of a government? The writing of a Constitution?

I guess if you are a victim of collectivist thinking then the term christian nation takes on a certain meaning that we are all christians and can't choose something else without sacrificing our national identity but normal people think that it means that the free choice of most people created a nation where christian values dominate.

These values, are they uniquely christian?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When did we actually need something to exist in the bible for us to use it?

If we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, where in the Bible did democracy come from? Representative government? What did Jesus ever teach about the formation of a government? The writing of a Constitution?

I guess if you are a victim of collectivist thinking then the term christian nation takes on a certain meaning that we are all christians and can't choose something else without sacrificing our national identity but normal people think that it means that the free choice of most people created a nation where christian values dominate.

What are the uniquely Christian values that manifest themselves in the structure of our government? that manifest themselves in the Constitution?

 

[SuMar]

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That's just fine. Cesar Chavez isn't relevant to children, there is absolutely no point in teaching his history over more important things, such as the Vietnam and Korea wars, reconstruction, and the Great Depression. Thurgood Marshall should be mentioned as an exceptional justice, but the race issue should be limited to basics lest some jackass teacher make the lesson all about their value judgments. Thomas Jefferson should not be removed, and I have a hard time believing that is true.

I would find a source other than "Think progress." They aren't even close to non-partisan and they like to reach for things. I don't even look at their links anymore after destroying a stupid article they had about State Department planes allegedly spraying chemicals past the Columbian border.

 

[Father Time]

"when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation"

yes they hated religion so much that they just HAD to mention GOD in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. such athiests to suggest we get our rights from God.

The man who wrote the declaration was Thomas Jefferson he also crafted this Virginia law
The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

which says that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind" (emphasis mine)

1) That was taken out of context which has not comprehendable meaning

2) He mentions God-given rights

"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens"

3) He mentions natural law many times

such act will be an infringement of natural right

How is that part taken out of context? Oh and saying 'God gave us free will' is not saying 'We have God-given rights'.

The point is despite his beliefs it's quite clear he didn't like the mixing of church and state or he wouldn't have written the bill.

 

[Father Time]

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That's just fine. Cesar Chavez isn't relevant to children, there is absolutely no point in teaching his history over more important things, such as the Vietnam and Korea wars, reconstruction, and the Great Depression.

I'd say the same thing about the contract with America and the NRA (and I support the NRA), as well as some other things they want mentioned in all Texas history classes.

 

[SuMar]

As long as we keep the racism alive, we'll never get to the point where racism doesn't matter. You don't need to beat kids over the head with it to get them to understand that blacks used to have it tough. It's great that Justice Marshall was the first black Supreme Court justice. Neato. Tell it, then leave it. We don't need a list of first black this and that. How about just treat them like people, not like people of color. History worthy accomplishments should be noted for their history worthiness, not for the color of the person who did it. It's time to stop the identity politics. We'll never have a color blind society until you stop reminding people what color they are. Stop the hate. It's not revisionist. It's choosing to focus on the positive, and not rubbing people's noses in the negative.

Cesar Chavez is not history worthy for children. Teach about him in college to people who give a crap, but he is of no real significance otherwise. Maybe mention him when talking about unions and their place in history, but he gets far too much coverage simply for being a minority. He's a footnote in history, and nothing more. The only reason he is mentioned is to support the identity politics of "Hispanics" in some misguided attempt to keep them interested in the classroom and to keep the La Raza rabble-rousers off of the administrators' backs. It's time wasted to check off a political box.

Reconstruction is important because it was an actual period of history that affected the country as a whole in a significant way. You can certainly talk about what happened to slaves between emancipation and Jim Crow, but to keep harping on it the way they do is simply ridiculous. Teach history, not identity politics.

 

[MajikMyst]

I think this thread got off track here..

History is being in some cases twisted to look more favorable and promote a conservative agenda..

It is a kin to how a section in the healthcare bill about end of life care was made into death panels.. An agenda was pushed at the expense of the truth..

If you twist the truth or make it look like what it isn't then you are lying to the students..

Their ciriculum on the civil rights movement is nothing more than teaching racism to children..

Their entire ciriculum is teaching our children to hate our society like they do..

In short it is forceing an unpopular agenda on our children..

Hitlers youth come to mind..

 

[manifold]

History is being in some cases twisted to look more favorable and promote a conservative agenda..

Can you provide and example of where it is being "twisted?"

From what I read, it looks like they're being selective about what they include in the curriculum, which of course is necessary since you can't teach everything that has ever happened. I would agree that their selections are clearly biased, but I fail to see how that constitutes twisting.

 

[Father Time]

As long as we keep the racism alive, we'll never get to the point where racism doesn't matter. You don't need to beat kids over the head with it to get them to understand that blacks used to have it tough. It's great that Justice Marshall was the first black Supreme Court justice. Neato. Tell it, then leave it. We don't need a list of first black this and that. How about just treat them like people, not like people of color. History worthy accomplishments should be noted for their history worthiness, not for the color of the person who did it. It's time to stop the identity politics. We'll never have a color blind society until you stop reminding people what color they are. Stop the hate. It's not revisionist. It's choosing to focus on the positive, and not rubbing people's noses in the negative.

Cesar Chavez is not history worthy for children. Teach about him in college to people who give a crap, but he is of no real significance otherwise. Maybe mention him when talking about unions and their place in history, but he gets far too much coverage simply for being a minority. He's a footnote in history, and nothing more. The only reason he is mentioned is to support the identity politics of "Hispanics" in some misguided attempt to keep them interested in the classroom and to keep the La Raza rabble-rousers off of the administrators' backs. It's time wasted to check off a political box.

Reconstruction is important because it was an actual period of history that affected the country as a whole in a significant way. You can certainly talk about what happened to slaves between emancipation and Jim Crow, but to keep harping on it the way they do is simply ridiculous. Teach history, not identity politics.

I agree with all that (well except for Chavez since I don't know much about him and can't debate his historical significance), and personally I would prefer not hearing about insignificant leaders and not hearing about every conservative they wish to bring up.