Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

[Chappy]

Who said Texas was a scientific backwater? This is an important new experimental test of the theory: Is ignorance bliss? Well done, Texas school board, well done!

 

[Deuce]

Blatantly partisan curriculum. So much for trying to keep politics out of the classroom.

The worst part is, standards for Texas schoolbooks end up affecting many other states, since Texas is such a large purchaser of books, the publishers will make sure to conform to their standards to make sure they can sell there.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The textbooks that I've seen have a slight liberal slant in some areas. I don't agree with their take on everything. Of course the reasonable thing to do is present both sides to of each argument and let students decide for themselves. I guess that went over the heads of the folks on the school board.

 

[Your Star]

Yet another reason never to move to Texas!

 

[texmaster]

link



Good.



Also, good. It is true in many areas.



Heaven forbid that we actually teach what the influences of our Founding Fathers were...



Heaven forbid that we teach students what the government of the US REALLY is...



Heaven forbid we actually teach some BASIC economic understanding...



Well, duhh...

You are welcome

 

[Boo Radley]

You are welcome

For what? :roll:

 

[texmaster]

For what? :roll:

For the future textbooks free of liberals rewriting history and denigrating our heritage. :2wave:

 

[Boo Radley]

For the future textbooks free of liberals rewriting history and denigrating our heritage. :2wave:

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

Is that code for be free of anything that is factually accurate?

 

[texmaster]

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

Is that code for be free of anything that is factually accurate?

Read the OP again. We aren't trying to pretend America was founded by a bunch of atheists or lie about the foundings of this republic not democracy.

Unlike the folks that vote with you. :2wave:

 

[Boo Radley]

Read the OP again. We aren't trying to pretend America was founded by a bunch of atheists or lie about the foundings of this republic not democracy.

Unlike the folks that vote with you. :2wave:

Nor is anyone else. The OP, or more accurately the Texas school board, is factually challenged. As others have shown, truth is more balanced than you want to pretend it is.

 

[texmaster]

Nor is anyone else. The OP, or more accurately the Texas school board, is factually challenged. As others have shown, truth is more balanced than you want to pretend it is.

Not even close. Just glad the writing of history by the liberals is kept at bay.

I did find it amusing you as typical of many liberals want to emphasize separation of church and state even though it is no where in the Constitution.

That is the kind of revisionist history conservatives will fight liberals on every time.

 

[texmaster]

Blatantly partisan curriculum. So much for trying to keep politics out of the classroom.

The worst part is, standards for Texas schoolbooks end up affecting many other states, since Texas is such a large purchaser of books, the publishers will make sure to conform to their standards to make sure they can sell there.

Actually, thats the best part.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not even close. Just glad the writing of history by the liberals is kept at bay.

I did find it amusing you as typical of many liberals want to emphasize separation of church and state even though it is no where in the Constitution.

That is the kind of revisionist history conservatives will fight on liberals every time.

I didn't emphasize anything. Are you as factually challenged as the Texas school board?

No, every item on their list is a misrepresentation and factually off. Too many self professed conservatives prefer a dishonest, propaganda type misrepresentation of history to one that is accurate. And they too often explain their skewed bias as a response to evil liberals. Those people aren't really conservatives, which is why i said self professed. There only two steps up from Birthers and Tea party nutters, with too little interest in being accurate and too much interest in spreading the propaganda. And perhaps a little lacking in national esteem, needing to be told how good they are every five minutes or they freak.

 

[texmaster]

I didn't emphasize anything. Are you as factually challenged as the Texas school board?

You can keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again and it still wont make it true.

No, every item on their list is a misrepresentation and factually off. Too many self professed conservatives prefer a dishonest, propaganda type misrepresentation of history to one that is accurate. And they too often explain their skewed bias as a response to evil liberals. Those people aren't really conservatives, which is why i said self professed. There only two steps up from Birthers and Tea party nutters, with too little interest in being accurate and too much interest in spreading the propaganda. And perhaps a little lacking in national esteem, needing to be told how good they are every five minutes or they freak.

I just gave you 3 examples of liberalism lies of the history of this nation and instead of addressing those you continue the same falsehoods without evidence.


Typical.

 

[Boo Radley]

You can keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again and it still wont make it true.



I just gave you 3 examples of liberalism lies of the history of this nation and instead of addressing those you continue the same falsehoods without evidence.


Typical.

You were and are inaccurate. You have both the fact of what is written and what it should be wrong.

 

[texmaster]

You were and are inaccurate. You have both the fact of what is written and what it should be wrong.

And once again you conclude without a shred of evidence to support yourself.

Does it ever get tiresome even for you to draw conclusions based on nothing?


Was separation of church and state in the Constitution? yes or no

Are we a republic or a democracy?

Is God mentioned in the founding documentation of this nation? yes or no


You keep claiming everything is wrong without a shred of evidence.

Try producing some.

 

[Boo Radley]

And once again you conclude without a shred of evidence to support yourself.

Does it ever get tiresome even for you to draw conclusions based on nothing?

there's nothing to support. You make wild false claims, offering nothing as support, and you expect, what? Me to show the world isn't flat?

Seriously, you have nothing, so there is nothing to do until you produce something factual.

 

[texmaster]

there's nothing to support. You make wild false claims, offering nothing as support, and you expect, what? Me to show the world isn't flat?

Seriously, you have nothing, so there is nothing to do until you produce something factual.

I'm done with you.

You lack the maturity and skill to debate with factual evidence.


I'll let you get back to your declarations of superiority without evidence.

I used to do that too. Then I turned 6. :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

And once again you conclude without a shred of evidence to support yourself.

Does it ever get tiresome even for you to draw conclusions based on nothing?


Was separation of church and state in the Constitution? yes or no

Are we a republic or a democracy?

Is God mentioned in the founding documentation of this nation? yes or no


You keep claiming everything is wrong without a shred of evidence.

Try producing some.

No says it was written in the constitution. It comes from the writings of the founding fathers:

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[2] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state]Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Show me anyone who doesn't teach that we're a democratic republic. You asking a dumb ass question as if someone actually does what you claims isn't anything to respond to.

And the last one is meaningless. Again, no denies the words are used. But there are also other writings that don't fit well in your narritive.

Like I said, you are both wrong in what you think is taught and in what you think is fact, hence factually challenged.

 

[Boo Radley]

I'm done with you.

You lack the maturity and skill to debate with factual evidence.


I'll let you get back to your declarations of superiority without evidence.

I used to do that too. Then I turned 6. :roll:

And I'll listen to you when you present some evidence and not just silly assumptions.

 

[Your Star]

Was separation of church and state in the Constitution? yes or no

Are we a republic or a democracy?

Is God mentioned in the founding documentation of this nation? yes or no


You keep claiming everything is wrong without a shred of evidence.

Try producing some.

You act like separation between Church, and State is a bad thing. Here's a hint, its a good thing. The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There's your separation between church and state.

We are a representative republic.

No


It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
Source

 

[Black Dog]

How was America founded on Christan beliefs when were are not even a theocracy?

A little bit of reading is in store for you ludahai to actually get what the Founding fathers wanted you should really read the Federalist papers. :2wave::2wave:

What does being a "theocracy" have to do with Christian influences on our nation??? :roll:

So because some people wrote some books we were not influenced by Christians? Here I can do it too....



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/nation-under-americas-christian-heritage/dp/B000NRU9U6/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274511615&sr=1-5]Amazon.com: one nation under god, america's christian heritage: cdf: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/America-Christian-Nation-Here-Facts/dp/0741437775/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274511615&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: America: A Christian Nation? Here Are The Facts (9780741437778): Robert W. Pelton: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/America-Christian-Nation-Stephen-McDowell/dp/188745618X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274511615&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: America, A Christian Nation? (9781887456180): Stephen McDowell:…[/ame]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Constitutional-Convention-Debates-Classics/dp/0451528840/ref=pd_sim_b_2"]Amazon.com: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet…[/ame]

A little bit of reading is in store for you RyrineaHaruno to actually get what the Founding fathers wanted you should really read the Declaration of Independence as well.

Please, next time post real evidence, not a bunch of useless books from Amazon.com. :roll:

 

[texmaster]

No says it was written in the constitution. It comes from the writings of the founding fathers:

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[2] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your stupidity on the subject truly knows no bounds.
Can you not even read your own link? It was NOT in the constitution.

It was written by Jefferson in a letter.

Enjoy your fail.

Show me anyone who doesn't teach that we're a democratic republic. You asking a dumb ass question as if someone actually does what you claims isn't anything to respond to.

LOL a Democratic republic. Do you enjoy making up terms as well?

We are a Constitutional republic.

The Constitution of the United States that was drafted is a dead giveaway :rofl

But since you don't have a clue about the history of this country, I'll spoonfeed you:

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people (in democratic republics those representatives are elected by the people) and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

Enjoy your fail once again.

And the last one is meaningless.

To you of course it is. Just more whitewashing of history by you.

Again, no denies the words are used. But there are also other writings that don't fit well in your narritive.

LOL Wow are you uninformed. Again read the OP.

Like I said, you are both wrong in what you think is taught and in what you think is fact, hence factually challenged.

You can't even tell the difference between a democracy and a republic based on a Constitution and you have the audacity to call us factually inaccurate? Try looking in the mirror.

 

[texmaster]

You act like separation between Church, and State is a bad thing. Here's a hint, its a good thing.

I don't "act" like anything.

It isn't in the Contitution and that is 100% true. You should try reading it.

The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
There's your separation between church and state.

More revisionist history. My God this exactly why liberals should stay the hell away from history books.

The first ammendment was written specifically from establishing a religion. In the times, the people OVERWHELMINGLY CHRISTIAN were scared of a state choosing a sect of Christianity to be dictated by the state, something they ran from in Europe. NEVER did they say religion had no place in government. This is the gross lie liberals love to spout and why we are so thankful you are not in charge to bastardize history.

We are a representative republic.

We are a republic based on a Constitution. NOT a democracy.

No


It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance,

You just lost the argument my friend.

however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.

Oh right. They just said it as happenstance. Face it, they came from a religious society that incorportated religion into daily life.

Another lie by the liberal left without a shred of evidence to support this theory.

This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. In fact, the original Constitution bars any religious test to hold any federal office in the United States.
Source

You want more evidence of God referred to by the founding fathers? No problem!

Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. ... I am a real Christian -- that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

Another liberal lie shot down claiming Jefferson wasn't a christian when his own words contract that lie.

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "As to Jesus of Nazareth ... I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see."

Beyond these many writings -- as if further proof were needed -- our Founders unequivocally enumerated the natural rights of all men in our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." These are natural rights -- gifts from God, not government.



"To the distinguished Character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to add the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal Instances of providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labours with complete Success, demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good." --George Washington

Today is National Prayer Day.

In 1775, on the eve of Revolution, the First Continental Congress called for "a day of publick humiliation, fasting, and prayer."

Apparently, our Founders saw a national day of prayer as a fitting observance, not unlike the establishment of Thanksgiving, of which George Washington wrote in 1777, "Being the day set apart by the Honorable Congress for public Thanksgiving and Praise; and duty calling us devoutly to express our grateful acknowledgements to God for the manifold blessings he has granted us, the General ... earnestly exhorts, all officers and soldiers, whose absence is not indispensably necessary, to attend with reverence the solemnities of the day."

Other Founders continued the tradition.

John Adams declared May 9, 1798, as "a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer ... that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it."

James Madison followed this tradition, but wrote, "I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship."

Our Founders were greatly and rightly suspect of any encroachment by government upon religious freedom, and codified that proscription in Amendment I of our Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

In other words, Congress may not mandate that a particular religion be nationalized, and others be prohibited.

Our Founders were not radical secularists. Far from it. One need only examine their many writings on the subject as evidence. But, rightly, they didn't want the United States to be wedded with a particular church, as was the case with England and the Anglican Church.

Thomas Jefferson, a vigilant though skeptical Anglican, made clear this prohibition in his obscure but maliciously misconstrued 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Far from calling for the coercive stripping of all religious influences from public life, Jefferson merely assured his Baptist constituents in Connecticut that their denominational practices were safe because our Constitution provided a "wall of separation" between church and state, which would prohibit the national government from recognizing Anglicanism as the national religion. (Notably, two days after writing that letter, Jefferson attended religious services in the House of Representatives.)


Endowed by Our Creator - Alexander's Essays - PatriotPost.US

The lies many liberals tell on this issue are truly amazing. They deny the spiritual language of the time by the founding fathers including their own words. They even deny the faith of the founding fathers and then they bastardize the 1st amendment while ignoring the history of religion in Europe and the foundation of a nation to not have a specific christian faith dictated by the government.

That is the real history and Texas has stopped you from rewriting and lying about it to our children.

 

[Your Star]

I don't "act" like anything.

It isn't in the Contitution and that is 100% true. You should try reading it.



More revisionist history. My God this exactly why liberals should stay the hell away from history books.

The first ammendment was written specifically from establishing a religion. In the times, the people OVERWHELMINGLY CHRISTIAN were scared of a state choosing a sect of Christianity to be dictated by the state, something they ran from in Europe. NEVER did they say religion had no place in government. This is the gross lie liberals love to spout and why we are so thankful you are not in charge to bastardize history.

This was a fear, but it doesn't limit the amendment to just that. Any religion should not have an impact on any law made. Religion can't be taught in public school because it could conflict with someone being able to practice their religion which may be different to the one being taught in school, which is in violation of the amendment.
Also separation between Church and State has been held up by the Supreme Court numerous times and IS the policy of this country,

We are a republic based on a Constitution. NOT a democracy.

This is what I said? We have a Representative Republic, we vote for people to represent us in government proceedings, and act on our behalf. Did you even read my post, or did you just look at the "very liberal" on my profile, and immediately disagree?

You just lost the argument my friend.



Oh right. They just said it as happenstance. Face it, they came from a religious society that incorportated religion into daily life.

Another lie by the liberal left without a shred of evidence to support this theory.

That was a very common way of writing down the date during that time. Its just how they did things.

You want more evidence of God referred to by the founding fathers? No problem!

The lies many liberals tell on this issue are truly amazing. They deny the spiritual language of the time by the founding fathers including their own words. They even deny the faith of the founding fathers and then they bastardize the 1st amendment while ignoring the history of religion in Europe and the foundation of a nation to not have a specific christian faith dictated by the government.

That is the real history and Texas has stopped you from rewriting and lying about it to our children.

I don't care what the personal beliefs of the founding fathers were. It doesn't matter to me, or this country for that matter. What matters is what they wrote down in the Constitution, which is this country's supreme law. In the Constitution it states that there is to be a separation between church, and state, and that this country shall have no official religion. It's all stated out in the first amendment. This country's government will always be secular,and thats the way the founders wanted it. This country was first settled by people who wanted to be free from religious persecution. Do you not think the founders knew this? They didn't want this country to become what they left, they wanted this country to be a place where anybody could practice any religion they wanted. By making the government secular they ensured that this happens. The majority of this country may be Christian(including myself), but that doesn't make Jews, Muslims, Hindus,or people of any other religious beliefs right to practice their religion in this country without persecution any less important.
Please, don't tell me I don't know anything about history, I'm a history major, and plan on being an educator. I don't claim to know it all, but don't say I'm ignoring history. This country was never meant to be a Christian nation, and the first amendment says it all.