Texas Education Board

[boldbidder]

Apparently Christian Conservatives have just won a major victory in reshaping what will/can be taught in Texas public schools as well as what can be in text books. A few misc. links:

Texas Local News Station (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

From USA Today, a summary of some of the changes (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Thoughts?

[TheLastMohican]

Incredible.

Struck the word "democratic" in references to the form of U.S. government and replaced it with "constitutional republic."
What a transparent, childish tactic. Yes, the United States is technically a constitutional republic. But it is also democratic. Those terms are not mutually exclusive: they both are important to describe how the system works. This is probably a precursor to an attempt to synonymize "democratic" and "socialist."

Added references to "laws of nature and nature's God" in lessons about major political ideas.
I don't even know what this could be referring to. What do "laws of nature" have to do with political ideas? Has intelligent design become a campaign slogan?

Rejected lessons about why the United States was founded on the principle of religious freedom.
Okay, so the Pilgrims proved to be a tad hypocritical on this point, but that does not negate the entire purpose of their emigration. The founding fathers still, for some reason, thought it important to guarantee freedom of religion in the First Amendment. It was not the principle, but it still deserves a mention as a principle.

Removed most references to "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," because conservatives said they had a "negative connotation." Instead, "free enterprise" will be used when referring to the U.S. economic system.
Oh, so we need to "fix" the negative connotation by changing the name? Maybe the negative connotation is there for a reason. Or maybe it has been wrongly applied. Or maybe it's been exaggerated by paranoid conservatives. Wherever this notion came from, it does not justify the swapping of such a well-established economic term for the favorite contemporary catchphrase.

I hadn't expected the changes to be half this bad. What a disgrace.

[Scatterbrane]

Hard to tell what the consequences down the road will be.

In the short term, I'd expect that there will be less reliance on Texan policy on which textbooks to use in a classroom.

The changes seem somewhat on the mild side, but the intent is clear. Moulding language for the purposes of guiding ideology. The rejection of passages about religious freedom are the most galling to me personally, seems like censorship of history really. If those passages were too lengthy they could've reduced them to a measly few sentences, but outright refusal to include them is hard to justify.

[hubcap]

What a transparent, childish tactic. Yes, the United States is technically a constitutional republic. But it is also democratic. Those terms are not mutually exclusive: they both are important to describe how the system works. This is probably a precursor to an attempt to synonymize "democratic" and "socialist."
Having raised two children who were primarily educated in the public school system I am of the opinion that this change is definitely for the best. Both of my kids were taught that the United States is a democracy while in the public school system. They were not taught the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.............which is HUGE.
I don't even know what this could be referring to. What do "laws of nature" have to do with political ideas? Has intelligent design become a campaign slogan?
Actually "natural law" is a huge part of political philosophy as well as judicial philosophy. Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes used natural law as the foundation for their philosophy.

This does not appear to be nefarious in any way, and it has nothing to do with intelligent design.

The other stuff seems to be a non-starter to me. No big deal. Nothing to see here folks......move along.
I hadn't expected the changes to be half this bad. What a disgrace.
It seems like this is a yawner to me. The media may be attempting to get some mileage out of this, but I can't see anything about it that appears heavy-handed or partisan agenda driven.

[Mader]

This is about history. Not how we think or feel today, this is about the past.

In the past, they used AD/BC.
In the past, they emphasized free enterprise versus capitalism
In the past, American history was, forgive me for saying this, based on white people. Now hopefully everyone here remembers learning that the first man to die for our freedom was an free black man
In the past, God was an essential part of our history, our daily lives.

When we start writing about the 21st century, then we can include the proposed changes.

Anything else is revisionist, and revisionism is ignorance.

[Ray9]

Making history more accurate? This is an outrage! Liberals have spent the last forty years trying to expunge the concept of a creator or even the mere mention of God from the record of this republic and now these lunatics in Texas have the unmitigated gall to set the record straight? It's blasphemy! And just when the progressive left was poised to change our beloved dollar bills to read "In Government We Trust". It's a travesty beyond belief! This will set us back decades! All the wonderful things the liberals have brought to our system of education will be gone. The next thing you know the teachers will stop having sex with the students! I don't what this world is coming to. Jeepers!

[prekieb]

I think it's for the best. I agree with Hubcap, Mader, and Ray9 - if I interpret his sarcasm correctly ;). I too was taught the U.S. is a democracy and didn't learn it was a republic until college. In my adolescence, I was more open to liberal ideas. As I've grown in experience, I realized the liberal ideaologies do not work in the real world.

[TheLastMohican]

Having raised two children who were primarily educated in the public school system I am of the opinion that this change is definitely for the best. Both of my kids were taught that the United States is a democracy while in the public school system. They were not taught the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.............which is HUGE.
I agree that the distinction is important, but that's not what they're teaching here. Instead, they are removing the word "democratic." It still is a valid adjective in explanations of our government, even though we are not a pure, direct democracy.

Actually "natural law" is a huge part of political philosophy as well as judicial philosophy. Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes used natural law as the foundation for their philosophy.
Yes, I know it's a huge part of philosophy, but I'm thrown off by the reference to "political ideas." Are they really referring to Enlightenment thinkers, or are they referring to modern political ideologies? I would guess the latter, in which case I don't see the connection.

[Night Runner]

Removed most references to "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," because conservatives said they had a "negative connotation."
What... the... hell?! :stunned: So wait, does this mean conservatives no longer support capitalism? Ye gods, just when I started to recover from the shock of learning that G.W.Bush, with his pinko commie socialist bailout program, was never a true conservative...

This all reeks of 1984: redefining terms and definitions to affect the minds of the little ones. By the way, this won't be contained to Texas alone. Since California and Texas are the largest states, the textbooks chosen by their education boards end up being used all over the country.

[phej]

What... the... hell?! :stunned: So wait, does this mean conservatives no longer support capitalism? Ye gods, just when I started to recover from the shock of learning that G.W.Bush, with his pinko commie socialist bailout program, was never a true conservative...

This all reeks of 1984: redefining terms and definitions to affect the minds of the little ones. By the way, this won't be contained to Texas alone. Since California and Texas are the largest states, the textbooks chosen by their education boards end up being used all over the country.

The whole bullet item was:

Removed most references to "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," because conservatives said they had a "negative connotation." Instead, "free enterprise" will be used when referring to the U.S. economic system.

[Night Runner]

I saw the second part too. :) Still, though - the conservatives are trying to distance themselves from the very word "capitalism." I thought it was something they always embraced...

[hubcap]

I agree that the distinction is important, but that's not what they're teaching here. Instead, they are removing the word "democratic." It still is a valid adjective in explanations of our government, even though we are not a pure, direct democracy.


Yes, I know it's a huge part of philosophy, but I'm thrown off by the reference to "political ideas." Are they really referring to Enlightenment thinkers, or are they referring to modern political ideologies? I would guess the latter, in which case I don't see the connection.
Our entire form of federal government is based on the premise of natural law...........which seem relevent to me when studying history. I guess they didn't bother including that in the curriculum at your school.:)

[TheLastMohican]

Our entire form of federal government is based on the premise of natural law...........which seem relevent to me when studying history. I guess they didn't bother including that in the curriculum at your school.:)
I'm talking about what they are intending to teach in public schools; history classes typically don't delve into the writings of such philosophers, and I took their "political ideas" reference to mean things like communism, totalitarianism, etc. My own education is irrelevant.

[hubcap]

I'm talking about what they are intending to teach in public schools; history classes typically don't delve into the writings of such philosophers, and I took their "political ideas" reference to mean things like communism, totalitarianism, etc.
To the best of my recollection when I was in school we were taught about the principles upon which our government was founded. I do remember some names that were specifically mentioned such as Thomas Paine and John Locke, although I don't remember Hobbes specifically................but that was quite some time ago.

To me it doesn't seem that a discussion of natural law would be at all out of place in a history class, but apparently it does offend some folks in Texas.

[TheLastMohican]

To the best of my recollection when I was in school we were taught about the principles upon which our government was founded. I do remember some names that were specifically mentioned such as Thomas Paine and John Locke, although I don't remember Hobbes specifically................but that was quite some time ago.

To me it doesn't seem that a discussion of natural law would be at all out of place in a history class, but apparently it does offend some folks in Texas.
Perhaps I have a skewed impression of high school education (having been homeschooled myself). Going by my experience, it seems relatively few students are familiar with those writings. How long ago were you in school?

[Dodeca]

Personally I believe public schools think adolescents are idiots. That is why they stopped teaching critical thinking skills like philosophy. If they really want to educate student's hows about having them read books by the founding fathers not right wing/left wing propagandists literature.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. - Thomas Paine

As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. - Thomas Paine

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Shauru]

The bigger issue here is that once again money is playing a more important role in education than education. A whole country is going to have to use a text book based on texan political ideology because a publisher is a tight ass cheap wad. This is not an appropriate way to be hanfling this type of issue.

As far as the details. We are a republic and that's a very important distinction that should be made. Anyone whose done some history reading as an adult knows the founding fathers were not very religious and stating otherwise ignores the treaty in which Monroe said we were not a christian nation. That's from mouth of a founding father. Furthermore. I don't see how removing notions of racial injustice is accurate or unimportant.

What are you going to say. The rich southern plantation owners got rich because they had cotton fields that magically picked themselves? Or that the railroads grew out of the ground all by themselves?

[kepstein8888]

Removed most references to "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," because conservatives said they had a "negative connotation." Instead, "free enterprise" will be used when referring to the U.S. economic system.


As with most euphemisms, the real meaning always seems to bleed through, so they'll just have to change it again for next edition.

[phej]

I saw the second part too. :) Still, though - the conservatives are trying to distance themselves from the very word "capitalism." I thought it was something they always embraced...

Conservatives are as homogeneous as Liberals. As such, there are some Liberals and Conservatives who do like capitalism. And there are some that do not.

[plotthickens]

Part of the point of education is to have a common basis for discussion. Changing the basis of our communication for just one part of the nation may not be the best idea.

[Cooper]

Texas prints the vast majority of school text books, seems to me they are creating jobs for themselves. Print them with these cahanges, then turn around and print them with the changes they will have to make to correct this mistake.......

[Amphorian]

I learned about constitutional republic and free enterprise in high school (actually in middle school (I had Pre-AP classes), and yes I live in Texas. I can understand about mentioning how religion has effected our nation (and yes I learned about that as well), but that our nation wasn't founded on religious freedom? That's kinda weird, even from the conservatives. If there wasn't no religious freedom there be a big war between the Catholics and Protestants for control of the United States I bet. o_0

I'd wouldn't worry so much about how the textbooks are written. I'd worry about what type of teachers are teaching your children. I had excellent teachers (I live in one of the best school districts in my state... I mean Texas education is way down there. 48th I think? At least last I heard anyways). So my teachers didn't just use the textbook, they used other resources, did correct wording that was in the textbook, and even disagreed with policies about what should be in textbooks (like my biology teacher mentioned that he had to mention intelligent design, which he mentioned it for a split second then moved on). PLUS, how many students really fully read the textbook? The common textbooks, not the AP or GT textbooks? The biggest factor is the teacher, then next if the student listens, and critically thinks/does outside research on the subject willingly.

[ElstonGunn]

Removed most references to "capitalism," "capitalist" and "free market," because conservatives said they had a "negative connotation." Instead, "free enterprise" will be used when referring to the U.S. economic system.

As with most euphemisms, the real meaning always seems to bleed through, so they'll just have to change it again for next edition.

Not to get off topic here, but I don't really understand why this change in terminology is okay, but when it comes to politically-correct changes in terms, many conservatives seem to think we should have just stopped worrying about connotations when we were still using terms like "negro," "yellow man," and "mongoloid idiot."

I take it as more evidence that it's never really been about the terms themselves, anyways. Like Night Runner mentioned, it seems like more of an Orwellian, "control the language, and you control the mind" kind of thing, but not that blatant about it.


Both of my kids were taught that the United States is a democracy while in the public school system. They were not taught the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.............which is HUGE.

Just out of curiosity, what is this huge difference between them? How would you characterize it? Is it really that big, especially when compared to the difference between a republic and an absolute monarchy? Could you explain the differences between a republic and a representative democracy to me, and point out why these differences are important enough to warrant changes to state-wide textbooks?

[TheLastMohican]

Just out of curiosity, what is this huge difference between them? How would you characterize it? Is it really that big, especially when compared to the difference between a republic and an absolute monarchy? Could you explain the differences between a republic and a representative democracy to me, and point out why these differences are important enough to warrant changes to state-wide textbooks?

I think he was referring to the fact that people often refer to "democracy" without clarifying that ours is not a direct democracy (which, in accordance with the Greek origins, would be the default definition). (That does not justify the extremeness of the change, but I do think that the textbooks should note the difference and use the word "constitutional.")

[hubcap]

Just out of curiosity, what is this huge difference between them? How would you characterize it? Is it really that big, especially when compared to the difference between a republic and an absolute monarchy? Could you explain the differences between a republic and a representative democracy to me, and point out why these differences are important enough to warrant changes to state-wide textbooks?
There is a huge difference between a democracy and a republic. The government of the United States is a constitutional republic which means that the rights of individuals are protected from the tryanny of the majority. In other words the majority are prevented by the Constitution from usurping the rights of any individual. In a democracy the majority rule and they can do pretty much anything they choose to do. A democracy is commonly referred to as "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority.

From Wiki:

The term republic may have many different meanings. Today, it often simply means a state with an elected or otherwise non-monarchical head of state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran or Republic of Korea. It may also have a meaning similar to liberal democracy. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".

[ElstonGunn]

There is a huge difference between a democracy and a republic. The government of the United States is a constitutional republic which means that the rights of individuals are protected from the tryanny of the majority. In other words the majority are prevented by the Constitution from usurping the rights of any individual. In a democracy the majority rule and they can do pretty much anything they choose to do. A democracy is commonly referred to as "mob rule" or "tyranny of the majority.

But when you start adding adjectives like "Constitutional," it can change the meaning significantly. A monarchy and a democracy sound different, but only until you specify that you're talking about a parliamentary, constitutional monarchy in which the monarch is officially the head of state but has little real power (the UK for example,) and a representative, constitutional democracy like the US. Inasmuch as it's affected by the form of government, is the day-to-day life of a Brit that much different from that of an American?

Or a republic sounds pretty different from a dictatorship, but not if you specify that it's a single-party republic with its president appointed for life. And that in itself isn't all that different from a de-facto single party republic like Mexico (until recently), in which one party controlled the government for 60 or 70 years.

If you don't allow the term "democracy" to make use of any adjectives, and assume that it tends to devolve into a negative form, the consistent thing to do would be to apply the same standard to republics. You could say that democracy is mob rule and abuse of the minority, and republics are run by aristocratic blue-bloods who have no concern for the lives of their constituents.

If you want to call the US a republic based on the argument that it's not really "of, for, and by the people," then I could see the logic and I might agree. But to say that it's not a democracy because it doesn't fit in with one particularly negative, somewhat narrowly-characterized version of democracy seems odd to me.

[hubcap]

Every form of government is subject to nuances which distinguish them from other forms of government. They may be similar in nature but the subtle differences can result in huge differences in outcome.

People tend to use the term "democracy" as if it is a universally good thing, when in fact a democracy can be just as tyrannical as a monarchy or dictatorship. I believe that if we are going to communicate and discuss ideas we should use precision in language and understand the subtle differences.

Teaching children that the United States is a democracy is fundamentally wrong. The United States does include some elements of democracy into our form of government, but it is not a democracy.

[ElstonGunn]

I understand that you don't think that the US is a democracy. I'm curious about why you think that, whether your criticisms would still apply if a modifier like "representative," "federal," "constitutional," or something along those lines were applied to the term "democracy," and why you think that "republic" in and of itself is a superior description of the US government than "democracy."

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of this. Just curious about your reasoning and about why it matters to begin with.

[hubcap]

I understand that you don't think that the US is a democracy. I'm curious about why you think that, whether your criticisms would still apply if a modifier like "representative," "federal," "constitutional," or something along those lines were applied to the term "democracy," and why you think that "republic" in and of itself is a superior description of the US government than "democracy."

I'm not disagreeing with you on any of this. Just curious about your reasoning and about why it matters to begin with.
Modifiers can make a huge difference when attempting to communicate. For instance, if I asked you "Would you like some ice cream?" You might say: "Why yes, I love ice cream". But if I asked you: "Would you like some Rocky Road ice cream?" your response might be quite different because you may be allergic to nuts.

If we are going to bother teaching children about government (which I believe we should) then I think it is important that we teach them correctly.

Here is a decent description from Wiki of a "constitutional republic" -

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That description is quite different than the one found for "representative democracy":

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy.[1]

The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.

In many representative democracies (Canada, Australia, UK, etc), representatives are most commonly chosen in elections by a plurality of those who are both eligible to cast votes and actually do so. A plurality means that a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other candidate in the race, but does not necessarily require a majority of the votes cast. This is not the case in Australia where the elected representatives of the house of representatives are elected by a system of preferential voting and require the support of 50% or more voters in a single round to be elected. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to choose representatives, in theory other methods, such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also, representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives, presidents, or other officers of government (indirect representation).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am simply advocating that we teach the children correctly rather than teach them error. You might find it interesting that a number of the Founders thought of "democracy" as one of the most evil forms of government and put forth great effort to ensure the United States was not a democracy.

It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers

[Aronnax]

"Republic" is as vague as "Democracy" and can easily be oppressive. In a modern sense they've become nearly meaningless modifiers. See: Republic of Cuba, People's Republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Socialist Republic of Vietnam....

What you're interested in is the political science associated with the US system but that's not going to be communicated more or less effectively by playing word games with a textbook. I see the republic/democracy argument as a waste of energy: people are bicking over the wallpaper while termites are eating the structural beams.

[Ray9]

If you really want to enlighten students teach them this:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hubcap]

"Republic" is as vague as "Democracy" and can easily be oppressive. In a modern sense they've become nearly meaningless modifiers. See: Republic of Cuba, People's Republic of China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Socialist Republic of Vietnam....

What you're interested in is the political science associated with the US system but that's not going to be communicated more or less effectively by playing word games with a textbook. I see the republic/democracy argument as a waste of energy: people are bicking over the wallpaper while termites are eating the structural beams.
The fact that various communist countries attempt to create a facade by incorrectly labeling their government shouldn't cause us to change the definition. We should simply point out the truth.

[Night Runner]

Just to add some perspective to the board's decision... It appears they weren't entirely unbiased. :rolleyes:

"We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan -- he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last 20 years because he lowered taxes."
-- Dr. Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas Board of Education, which recently approved a controversial new school curriculum

[hubcap]

Just to add some perspective to the board's decision... It appears they weren't entirely unbiased.
No person is without bias.

[TheLastMohican]

Just to add some perspective to the board's decision... It appears they weren't entirely unbiased. :rolleyes:

"We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan -- he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last 20 years because he lowered taxes."
-- Dr. Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas Board of Education, which recently approved a controversial new school curriculum

Talk about tunnel vision.

[Night Runner]

No person is without bias.
But some are clearly more biased than others. The question is, should a person with such great biases be the chairman of the most powerful education board in the country?

[boldbidder]

I have only a single issue with this; if you have such a problem with what is taught in public schools as a parent you can keep your child at home and home school them or offer supplementary educational pieces.

Basing the purchase of a textbook by how it views Christianity or the quality of the paper blowjob it gives to Reagan is laughable. The beliefs themselves aren't laughable, but effectively changing the educational diet of so many based on what YOU believe would be hilarious if it weren't so scary.

If you have a particular take on Christianity, great teach that to your kid at home. Think Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread and the invention of the thong? Super, show the progeny that shrine you have at home dedicated to 666.

This is case represents very effectively why America is turning into a land of friggin morons. People expect public schools to do everything, to be everything, that they individually want/need it to be. Whatever happened to parenting and instilling YOUR morals and values into YOUR kids instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.

Why have we come to a place in American society where EVERYTHING needs to be legislated somehow.

[hubcap]

But some are clearly more biased than others. The question is, should a person with such great biases be the chairman of the most powerful education board in the country?
That is a reasonable question to ask.

History as I see it should simply be about the relevant facts that contributed to the world as it is. The rub comes in when various people attempt to determine which facts are relevant.

Unfortunately any political entity is going to be subject to politics.

[Valiyn]

And the Texas school boards have now succeeded from reality. A few updates on the story and what's being passed:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[boldbidder]

And the Texas school boards have now succeeded from reality. A few updates on the story and what's being passed:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wowsers, what evil parallel universe do some of those board members inhabit?

A quote from the above article:

The only accurate method of ascertaining the intent of the founding fathers at the time of our government's inception comes from a biblical worldview," she wrote. "We as a nation were intended by God to be a light set on a hill to serve as a beacon of hope and Christian charity to a lost and dying world.

I really want to believe that this is some sort of skit from a sketch comedy show. Sad sad stuff. Simply reaffirms my belief that the most important information that your children need has to be taught by parents at home, or in this case 'untaught'.

[Tristan]

This is case represents very effectively why America is turning into a land of friggin morons. People expect public schools to do everything, to be everything, that they individually want/need it to be. Whatever happened to parenting and instilling YOUR morals and values into YOUR kids instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.

Why have we come to a place in American society where EVERYTHING needs to be legislated somehow.

I'm not sure, but I think I can answer this straight out in two pieces.
Firstly, kids are no longer miniature breadwinners for a family. The economic unimportance of modern children has caused, ahem, subtle differences in the way they are raised. Namely, instead of being disciplined by involved, zealous parents, they are raised in lax munificence by surrogates.
Secondly, regarding the surrogates known as "schools," they are funded improperly. Schools are best when they only take money from the locals, the parents, and the alumni. Schools are worst when they take money from the state and federal governments. These upper levels are avenues for easy, poisonous money and a laser-like focus on unimportant problems. Most things I say are opinions, but that is incontrovertibly true. Imagine how impossible their task, if the Christian Right and the leftist Teachers' Union had to pressure every individual school to teach their dogmas, neh?

[Ray9]

Articles with less of a liberal slant:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[larkin]

Articles with less of a liberal slant:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes. I'm glad we can finally have a debate about whether it's possible that an alien named Xenu populated all life on earth. What are the scientists so afraid of? Wait, is that not the kind of "critical thinking" the Texas school board is trying to encourage?

[Holiman]

I can see these changes as a positive move to deal with the present problems in education.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

OK sarcasm over, we do not teach what kids need to know to enter the work force. We dont teach what kids need to know to get into college. We are falling behind the world by arguing over politics and religion. If we want to become a 3rd world nation this is the fastest road I could imagine.

If anyone thinks these assclowns have the right priorities about education then I am most likely not going to be able to convince you regardless.

[zibber]

Yes. I'm glad we can finally have a debate about whether it's possible that an alien named Xenu populated all life on earth. What are the scientists so afraid of? Wait, is that not the kind of "critical thinking" the Texas school board is trying to encourage?

Come on, now. You know that was just a failed science fiction writer's fantasy that some rich fools happened to fall for. We're talking about millennia-old mythology here. Mythology has a place in the science curriculum. How do you think Europe got its name, by accident? Zeus turned into a white bull, I have it right here in black and white. What, you think the sun just appeared out of thin air? Hint: it's a chariot. Thunder? Zeus again. There is clear fossil evidence showing that a cow existed in Greece around the time he changed Io; this cannot be hidden from children any longer.

If you oppose these reforms, you oppose freedom, the constitution, America, happiness and God. All the gods. You may as well take a gun and start shooting babies.

[Imperator]

Growing up, I learned it as a "democratic Republic".....


I am simply advocating that we teach the children correctly rather than teach them error. You might find it interesting that a number of the Founders thought of "democracy" as one of the most evil forms of government and put forth great effort to ensure the United States was not a democracy.

Then let's teach them correctly.

The United States is a federal Republic.

Or if you prefer to be more inclusive, a Constitutionally-based federal Republic or "Federal Constitutional Republic" would work as well.

Saying it's a [strict] Constitutional Republic is just as erroneous as saying it's a "democracy".

[saberu]

The best forms of government and economics were born from christian populations. It just a "guidepost" so we can understand what led us to our present day. We can always learn from other cultures but should never forget that we the winning ticket.

BTW I'm not a christian.

If you are unfamiliar with natural law theories I feel sorry for you. They are the major focus of almost every religious and political text written in human history.

This turn in focus is a hopeful sign. These topics are very relevant discussion in clearing up the confusion about government and economics.

Everything hubcap said.

If often find people who disagree with this point of view base all their opinions on media produced in the last several years. "College know it all hippies" who read about the history of world war 2 from a book published in 2008 plano texas.

[Frag]

The best forms of government and economics were born from christian populations.
The Greeks called, and asked me to say [citation needed].

Is it just me or is rampaging revisionism really "in" right now?

[zibber]

Hah. They did it! Congratulations, idiots!


If often find people who disagree with this point of view base all their opinions on media produced in the last several years. "College know it all hippies" who read about the history of world war 2 from a book published in 2008 plano texas.

I'm a college know-it-all hippie, and you are forgetting that we are the kinds of people that do actually research shit and form opinions based on a wide variety of sources.

Then again, don't let me interfere with your generalizations. Excuse me!

[Imperator]

The best forms of government and economics were born from christian populations. It just a "guidepost" so we can understand what led us to our present day. We can always learn from other cultures but should never forget that we the winning ticket.



Except for the fact that you're not defining what "best" is.....or who won, and what was won on that "ticket"......and what lottery we're playing, for that matter.....


BTW I'm not a christian.


Except you're quite sure everyone will probably interpret that way. Strange.


If you are unfamiliar with natural law theories I feel sorry for you. They are the major focus of almost every religious and political text written in human history.


Except for all those political texts and religious texts where it wasn't the focus.


This turn in focus is a hopeful sign. These topics are very relevant discussion in clearing up the confusion about government and economics.


Except the changes aren't accurate.


Everything hubcap said.


Except where he forgot to mention the US as a federal Republic.


If often find people who disagree with this point of view base all their opinions on media produced in the last several years. "College know it all hippies" who read about the history of world war 2 from a book published in 2008 plano texas.

Except many of those "college know it all hippies" are professional historians (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) commenting on factual errors within the proposed changes.

Well look at that....it is true there's an exception to every rule.....

[Operator]

America is already way behind other developed nations and this new measure will make it worse, i dont understand why they dont get if the next generations cant compete on the global level america is doomed and all great nations fall eventually but if we dont keep up we will fall sooner than later.