• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

He wrote the letter in 1802 when he was President, and the explanation of the letter was written to his attorney general, not to the church.

Wrong again. He wrote it to the Baptists themselves:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

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.


Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

Even better once again he reiterates his faith and belief in God.
 
I think the class should be "world religions" instead of just the Bible.

Also the government giving money to faith based groups is BS. I don't want my tax dollars going into tax exempt institutions.

They already have "comparative religion" classes. The people of Texas want a Bible class.
 
Last edited:
He wrote the letter in 1802 when he was President, and the explanation of the letter was written to his attorney general, not to the church.

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. So why would he send it to his attorney?

The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level.

Religion hasn't been wiped from anything. There are plenty of religious people in government, and their individual religious beliefs are not interfered with.

And yet if a public office sponsors a menorah or nativity, the militant atheists get all butt hurt.

Yes they are trying to wipe every aspect from public life.

But government shouldn't be used to promote any of the symbols, rites, or dogma of religion with taxpayer money.[/QUOTE]
 
"In final edits leading up to the vote, conservatives rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D."

Works for me, considering that the term Anno Domini can be tied to specific mythological event, and the term C.E. is tied to the EXACT SAME mythological event without actually saying so.

So, what's the point about CE?
 
Heaven forbid that we actually teach what the influences of our Founding Fathers were...

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. - Thomas Paine

The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun. - Thomas Paine, An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805)

--
Want more? :doh
 
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. - Thomas Paine

The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun. - Thomas Paine, An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805)

--
Want more? :doh

Jefferson and his protégé. A drunk and slave owner and his pupil.

We should definitely listen to them.

When it came to political thinking he was good, as a man, not so much.
 
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. So why would he send it to his attorney?


He sent it to his attorney for suggestions with his wording before he sent it to the Baptists.

It's very simple.

Jefferson sent the first letter below, together with the Danbury Baptist letter, the second letter below, to his attorney general asking for his attorney general's opinion on the Danbury letter. If you will finally read the first letter, you will see the purpose of the second letter.

This is getting comical at this stage, but for your reading pleasure I have posted the two letters you have been arguing about for days, but you still don't know why you're arguing about them.



Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, January 1, 1802

Jan 1, 1802.

Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths & principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.

The address, to be sure, does not point at this, & it's introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offence to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect, or promote a good one among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs: it is at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address, in the course of the day or evening. Health & affection.



Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, January 1, 1802



To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.



Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
Basically the letter says he did not want to offend the baptist even though the language mite condemn an "alliance" of church and state, which would have been unconstitutional.

You are reading far more into it than it actually says, just like the Constitution.

An elective class on the history of the Bible is not an "alliance" of church and state.
 
Last edited:
So why doesn't the Left want American children to learn about the fist black speaker of the house or the first black senators? Why don't they want children learning about blacks who escaped slavery and became prominent public officers?

Just my theory: It doesn't feed the victim mentality the Left needs in order to sustain political power.
 
I particularly like the addition they made vindicating McCarthyism.

I'm the first to admit that the sidebars in my childhood textbooks about basically irrelevant people who just happened to be minorities (Crispus Attucks is an excellent example) were...annoying...they're hardly comparable to to this outrageous political pamphlet the Texans are trying to masquerade as a textbook.
 
Basically the letter says he did not want to offend the baptist even though the language mite condemn an "alliance" of church and state, which would have been unconstitutional.

You are reading far more into it than it actually says, just like the Constitution.

An elective class on the history of the Bible is not an "alliance" of church and state.

Dude, finally you read the letter. Very good.

And I agree an elective class on the history of the Bible is fine, as long as they review the books of the other important religions too.

If the elective class only studies the Bible, then the agenda is obviously promotion of the Bible.
 
Dude, finally you read the letter. Very good.

And I agree an elective class on the history of the Bible is fine, as long as they review the books of the other important religions too.

If the elective class only studies the Bible, then the agenda is obviously promotion of the Bible.

Right, right, and any class on European history must also cover South African and Mongolian history as well :roll: A chemistry class must go over mechanical physics and political science, also. According to tryreading, a collision repair class MUST also cover desil mechanics and automotive electronics. According to tryreading, a basic first aid class must also cover pera-rescue and animal husbandry. If you want to take a wood shop class, then that wood shop class had better give equal time to welding.

The law clearly states that if enough people want to form the same class about any other religious text that they can, so your requirement is already met...there's just no demand for that product.
 
Last edited:
So why doesn't the Left want American children to learn about the fist black speaker of the house or the first black senators? Why don't they want children learning about blacks who escaped slavery and became prominent public officers?

Just my theory: It doesn't feed the victim mentality the Left needs in order to sustain political power.

American children do learn about that stuff.
 
Right, right, and any class on European history must also cover South African and Mongolian history as well :roll: A chemistry class must go over mechanical physics and political science, also. According to tryreading, a collision repair class MUST also cover desil mechanics and automotive electronics. According to tryreading, a basic first aid class must also cover pera-rescue and animal husbandry. If you want to take a wood shop class, then that wood shop class had better give equal time to welding.

The law clearly states that if enough people want to form the same class about any other religious text that they can, so your requirement is already met...there's just no demand for that product.

The analogies don't apply. None of those areas is specifically mentioned in the Constitution concerning promotion/non-promotion by the state.

You can see the direction in which the Texas board is going, that they are pushing a socially conservative agenda. They are Christian people that want to further their religion through kids in school. These are selfish, controlling people who want their religion promoted using public money. A portion of Texas's public school money comes from the federal government, and none of this should be used to push a religion, or any religion. I know, it's elective, right? And ID isn't creationism...

It's funny and strange to me that in Texas, in some straightforward subjects like history (McCarthy, Jefferson), they want to teach fiction. These people are not honest folks. They are underhanded, sneaking in addenda/language at the last minute. They need to be watched.
 
The analogies don't apply.

Accept that they apply.


None of those areas is specifically mentioned in the Constitution concerning promotion/non-promotion by the state.

Oh, you will enjoy learning that the class is an elective and is not oriented around students practicing any religion.

You can see the direction in which the Texas board is going, that they are pushing a socially conservative agenda.

Right, I fully acknowledge this. Texas is pushing a Conservative agenda, and that's a good thing because Conservatism is a good thing.

They are Christian people that want to further their religion through kids in school.

The law clearly states that other classes regarding other religious texts are just as permissible so long as the minimum enrollment number required for any class is met. Personally I would love a class on Hebrew which used the Torah and a class on the Rig Veda. Here in SD I would be open to sending my sons to a class on the oral traditions of the Lakota and/or Suix.

These are selfish, controlling people who want their religion promoted using public money.

:rofl

A portion of Texas's public school money comes from the federal government, and none of this should be used to push a religion, or any religion.

No one is pushing any religion. The Bible is not a religion :lol:

I know, it's elective, right?

Oh, then why do speak as though you didn't know that?

And ID isn't creationism...

Young Earth Creationism isn't in the Bile. It's an interpretation which I, a Christian, argue against.

It's funny and strange to me that in Texas, in some straightforward subjects like history (McCarthy, Jefferson), they want to teach fiction.

So any fictional text should be left out of the curriculum regardless of it's cultural significance? I confess I didn't enjoy Shakespeare...

These people are not honest folks. They are underhanded, sneaking in addenda/language at the last minute. They need to be watched.

You have that right, they need to be watched, and you need to learn from them. Conservatives know better than liberals, categorically. Whether Conservative Democrat or Conservative Republican, our rendering of history is accurate, and our economic and social policies have been proven to help a people flourish when implemented. Liberal policies fail every single time their tried; take Social Security and Segregation as examples of failed Liberal policies.

Most of the people who volunteer to serve in the military which protects you are Christians, so you might want to curb your bias against the book their ideals are recorded in.
 
Last edited:
Accept that they apply.




Oh, you will enjoy learning that the class is an elective and is not oriented around students practicing any religion.



Right, I fully acknowledge this. Texas is pushing a Conservative agenda, and that's a good thing because Conservatism is a good thing.



The law clearly states that other classes regarding other religious texts are just as permissible so long as the minimum enrollment number required for any class is met. Personally I would love a class on Hebrew which used the Torah and a class on the Rig Veda. Here in SD I would be open to sending my sons to a class on the oral traditions of the Lakota and/or Suix.



:rofl



No one is pushing any religion. The Bible is not a religion :lol:



Oh, then why do speak as though you didn't know that?



Young Earth Creationism isn't in the Bile. It's an interpretation which I, a Christian, argue against.



So any fictional text should be left out of the curriculum regardless of it's cultural significance? I confess I didn't enjoy Shakespeare...



You have that right, they need to be watched, and you need to learn from them. Conservatives know better than liberals, categorically. Whether Conservative Democrat or Conservative Republican, our rendering of history is accurate, and our economic and social policies have been proven to help a people flourish when implemented. Liberal policies fail every single time their tried; take Social Security and Segregation as examples of failed Liberal policies.

Most of the people who volunteer to serve in the military which protects you are Christians, so you might want to curb your bias against the book their ideals are recorded in.

The Bible is nothing but religion.

I am a conservative in many areas, fiscally, militarily, but liberal on personal rights. But that;s neither here nor there.

I would have a bias against the teaching on any single particular religious text to school kids. It should be all or none.


So any fictional text should be left out of the curriculum regardless of it's cultural significance? I confess I didn't enjoy Shakespeare...

My point was that the board is directing adding text to some books that is historically inaccurate. Those books are not supposed to be fiction.

Most of the people who volunteer to serve in the military which protects you are Christians, so you might want to curb your bias against the book their ideals are recorded in

Silly to bring up the military, implying that I'm demeaning them or their religion somehow. Assinine Republican ploy. Non sequitor.

And you'll notice, if you look back a few posts, I didn't say anything negative about the Bible, only about some of the people in Texas who want to promote it in schools.
 
Dude, finally you read the letter. Very good.

And I agree an elective class on the history of the Bible is fine, as long as they review the books of the other important religions too.

If the elective class only studies the Bible, then the agenda is obviously promotion of the Bible.

OK for the last time (not directed at you in particular) the class according to the law is a study of the history OF THE BIBLE and it's INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Not the history IN the Bible.

The problem is not the class, it is the improper or non existent training for the teachers.

No reason to cover anything else in this class. Jerry pretty much covered that.
 
Last edited:
My point was that the board is directing adding text to some books that is historically inaccurate. Those books are not supposed to be fiction.

It's only innacuret because you need it to innacuret.

You aren't giveng any examples, so we have to take the word of whomever has more authority on the matter, which is either you, some no-name anon from teh interwbs, or officials who's credentials can be independantly verified.

When you place your word against theirs, you lose every time.
 
OK for the last time (not directed at you in particular) the class according to the law is a study of the history OF THE BIBLE and it's INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Not the history IN the Bible.

The problem is not the class, it is the improper or non existent training for the teachers.

No reason to cover anything else in this class. Jerry pretty much covered that.

According to tryreading if you teach about the history of slavery you are therefore endorsing slavery.
 
I don't really get the purpose behind changing the abbreviations in the first place. I mean, it's still the same calendar, still counting from the same year 0-point. Do people have similar misgivings about using the days of the week (Norse mythology) or names of planets (Roman mythology)?

You mean from Year 1 -- there was no year 0, partly because that concept had not reached Europe yet.
 
It's only innacuret because you need it to innacuret.

You aren't giveng any examples, so we have to take the word of whomever has more authority on the matter, which is either you, some no-name anon from teh interwbs, or officials who's credentials can be independantly verified.

When you place your word against theirs, you lose every time.

There has been plenty written about the proposed historical changes. I'm sure you've read about this, or you wouldn't be arguing here.
 
According to tryreading if you teach about the history of slavery you are therefore endorsing slavery.

Not a proper analogy (again). The promotion/non-promotion of religion is a 1st Amendment concern.
 
Not a proper analogy (again). The promotion/non-promotion of religion is a 1st Amendment concern.

The class is not unconstitutional. So it is a good analogy as it has nothing at all to do with a state sanctioned religion being taught in a public school.

It is an elective class. It is not a Bible study or church service. It is a simple historical reference class on one of the most influential books of ours or any time.
 
Last edited:
And the border according to the treaty that ended that war is still the Rio Grande, I presume?

Yes but it actually went further north than the current border.
 
Back
Top Bottom