Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

[Zyphlin]

Alright here you go...

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.

Could care less on this. I don't mind moving towards what's generally academically used, while at the same time I have no issue with B.C. and A.D. as they are the more commonly used words for it. As such I think either of them would be a benefit to kids learning the times and thus I don't really care either way. Whichever one isn't used should be mentioned and made known to the kids so they're not confused.

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

McLeroy offered the amendment requiring students to evaluate efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty, saying they threatened individual liberty and freedom.

In high school I have no issue with this, if its not the ONLY stance they speak about. I have no issue with them speaking of both the critics and the supporters of the UN when talking about it to high schoolers, there's no reason they should ONLY present one opinion when there's a second opinion that has very large support.

In elementary school and even middle school I see no reason why the UN should really be discussed, either positively or negatively, in any way other than simply speaking about what caused its creation and what it does in a broad, general sense.

During the monthslong process of creating the guidelines, conservatives successfully strengthened the requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and attempted to water down rationale for the separation of church and state.

I have no problem with them talking about the judeo-christian influences on SOME of the nations founding fathers. Its impossible to say that there was not any influences from it. At the same time, I disagree with them potentially over inflating how much that influence was, and/or down playing the more generalized deist views of many of the Founding Fathers and the notion that while many of the principles were FOUNDED in christian principles the overall feel for how government should function was secular.

The standards will refer to the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic,"

Absolutely no issue here

and students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

Eh, this is absolutely ridiculous in anything but a high school class, and even then it'd have to be looked at very closely if its giving an accurate view. Liberal slanted teaching only is bad....Conservative slanted teaching only is ALSO bad. IF you're going to try to "balance" something you better actually BALANCE it, not just tilt it the other way.

 

[texmaster]

#1 No one has said America was founded on Christianity, not a soul.

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

The wording of the Constitution does not in any way back up the hog wash you have put forth.

#3 Yes, that's it; 4 times. :lol:

You are trying to ignore the history behind the choices and accuse people of saying things they did not say.

Yea for silliness.

Well done. Very good research :applaud

 

[texmaster]

Ever respond to anything without twisting everything you've just read? And now name calling? Weak. Very weak.

If thats your best way of ducking the facts it needs work.

I used Jefferson's exact quote from the Danbury letter to make my point, you used some unrelated wording to make yours. If you read over our posts again, you'll see I talked about any 'alliance' between church and state.

I'll say it again real slow. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. Exactly how many times will you deny the facts?

No matter how much you scream and cry Jefferson's letter is not in the Constitution. It is a letter to a Baptist community, nothing more.

You are once again trying to circumvent what is actually in the Constitution with what you want in it and that is not teaching history its revising it to meet your own political agenda.

I was responding to a poster who was ridiculing someone on this site, and who said that Jefferson's letter referred only to the establishment of a national religion. I showed that the Danbury response obviously goes much further than that, by posting the letter requesting advice Jefferson sent to Levi Lincoln together with the Danbury letter.

Nothing in that letter goes beyond Jefferson saying a Christian religious sect would not be established by the state. It was a direct response to fear from a Baptist preacher afraid of a sect of Christianity becoming an established religion under the state.

You are dishonestly putting meaning where none exists.

I'll say it again, either back up your ridiculous claim that Jefferson demanded a purge of any religion or God in government or retract your claim.

This is all pretty straightforward. You know of the Danbury letter, and I've shown you the Lincoln letter which explains the purpose of it. There is background and context there that you can see and interpret for yourself.

And here we have your fatal flaw. You are putting your own spin or what you call "interpretation" on what Jefferson said. Your opinion or reading between the lines is not evidence. The facts are he never said God or religion should be excluded from all government, only promising a Baptist community that no Christian sect will be an established religion by the government.

If you are going to continue this deception, at least point to the speciifc phrase in that letter that you claim backs you up. I know it doesn't exist but it is entertaining nonetheless.

Nobody anywhere said Jefferson made a personal declaration of atheism. What in the hell are you reading? Who is the liar here?

What I said was there were claims made that Jefferson was an atheist. These claims were made by the Federalists.

LOL Talk about dishonest. Anyone can make claims. You can't back up those claims with his own words which is why your argument is meaningless. I have him on record saying he is a Christian.

You lost that argument before you made it.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Actually its 10. There are 5 that are democrats. So in effect you are correct.

The best examples are the UN and Thomas Jefferson. If you teach that the UN is a threat to US sovereignty, then you're automatically injecting your opinion. What you should be doing is teaching about the UN and its function, you could ASK students if THEY think it's a threat to US sovereignty as part of a paper.

Once again you aren't reading carefully.

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

McLeroy offered the amendment requiring students to evaluate efforts by global organizations including the U.N. to undermine U.S. sovereignty, saying they threatened individual liberty and freedom.

You are the one who wants to shut down independent thought by shutting down any talk that might paint the UN in a bad light. What's next for you, book burnings?



The only lying is on your side.

Jefferson was not an agnostic or deist that your side continually lies about.

His own words prove he is a Christian.

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."

Once again the liberal lies are exposed. You want to read Jefferson's writings? Then read that. He never EVER said he was a deist or agnostic. That is the lies we are trying to expose from your side.



The funny thing about you and most of the other liberals on here is you keep claiming their is a bias but I'm the only one giving you concrete examples of the liberal lies specific in history.

Wow. What a load of crap.

I could try to logically argue against everything you've written here, but it wouldn't make any sense, since you have used NONE in your response.

You accuse me of ****ing BOOK BURNING? What a load of OPINION and NOT FACT.

I simply said: teach about the establishment of the UN and then let students write and back their own opinions.

YOU accuse me of wanting to BURN BOOKS?

This is COMPLETE AND UTTER TRUTH that you simply want your OPINION taught as fact.

I have no qualms with a student deciding that the UN is an affront to US sovereignty after they've learned simple unbiased facts. YOU WANT THAT TAUGHT AS FACT. And so does the TX BoE. Otherwise, why would their law state that students should "evaluate how the UN is an affront to sovereignty"?

If Jefferson is such a good Christian in your point-of-view, why is the TX BoE eliminating him from being a Founding Father?

Please explain that to me. And please explain to me how encouraging thought through evidence is the equivalent to book burning?

I'm simply stunned at the impudence and the fact that you think that you gave a single bit of PROOF. You gave none. None, sir.

 

[tryreading]

If thats your best way of ducking the facts it needs work.



I'll say it again real slow. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. Exactly how many times will you deny the facts?



Nothing in that letter goes beyond Jefferson saying a Christian religious sect would not be established by the state. It was a direct response to fear from a Baptist preacher afraid of a sect of Christianity becoming an established religion under the state.

You are dishonestly putting meaning where none exists.

I'll say it again, either back up your ridiculous claim that Jefferson demanded a purge of any religion or God in government or retract your claim.



And here we have your fatal flaw. You are putting your own spin or what you call "interpretation" on what Jefferson said. Your opinion or reading between the lines is not evidence. The facts are he never said God or religion should be excluded from all government, only promising a Baptist community that no Christian sect will be an established religion by the government.

If you are going to continue this deception, at least point to the speciifc phrase in that letter that you claim backs you up. I know it doesn't exist but it is entertaining nonetheless.



LOL Talk about dishonest. Anyone can make claims. You can't back up those claims with his own words.

You lost that argument before you made it.

Exactly what I did was back up my claims with Jefferson's own words. I showed exactly what Jefferson's intent was with the Danbury letter, and did that with his relevant writings to his cabinet member.

You refuse to see that, or you just don't get it.

Now you have gone in yet another direction, with the statement 'the separation of church and state is not in the constitution.' This is not what was discussed, not the point of my posts. My point to the other dubious historian was that the Danbury letter was written to make a public statement by Thomas Jefferson that the intent of the 1st Amendment was, according to him, a condemnation of the alliance between church and state.

Either respond with a linear post or my time with you is being wasted, and I will talk with someone else.

 

[texmaster]

Wow. What a load of crap.

Nice ducking of the facts. A cowardly tactics but not an original one.

I could try to logically argue against everything you've written here, but it wouldn't make any sense, since you have used NONE in your response.

In other words you can't debate the points so you are running away. Got it.

You accuse me of ****ing BOOK BURNING? What a load of OPINION and NOT FACT.

I asked if that was the next step since you don't want to talk about the facts of the UN. Don't lie about what I said.

I simply said: teach about the establishment of the UN and then let students write and back their own opinions.

YOU accuse me of wanting to BURN BOOKS?

Bull****. You said:

If you teach that the UN is a threat to US sovereignty, then you're automatically injecting your opinion.

Which is not only a lie its a setup for not talking about an negative facts against the UN. Since you are willing to cover up factual data about the UN because it doesn't fit with your own political agenda I asked if book burning was next on your list since they burned books for the same reason.

And the question still stands....

This is COMPLETE AND UTTER TRUTH that you simply want your OPINION taught as fact.

LOL Right. Because I don't want to censor unflattering history of the UN I'm injecting opinion. If censorship of factual data is what you consider truth you've got a long way to go.

I have no qualms with a student deciding that the UN is an affront to US sovereignty after they've learned simple unbiased facts. YOU WANT THAT TAUGHT AS FACT. And so does the TX BoE. Otherwise, why would their law state that students should "evaluate how the UN is an affront to sovereignty"?

Since you are incapable of reading the OP I'll quote it for you again:

They also required that public school students in Texas evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Is evaluate too big of a word for you?

If Jefferson is such a good Christian in your point-of-view, why is the TX BoE eliminating him from being a Founding Father?

Please explain that to me. And please explain to me how encouraging thought through evidence is the equivalent to book burning?

Wrong again slick. I wish at some point you actually kept up with events.

Texas educators voted to reinstate Thomas Jefferson to the state's study curriculum after earlier deleting him, observers said.

Texas school board 'reinstates' Jefferson - UPI.com

Try to keep up. :2wave:

I'm simply stunned at the impudence and the fact that you think that you gave a single bit of PROOF. You gave none. None, sir.

You're right. I just made up all those quotes of Jefferson and t he rest of the founding fathers :roll:

Thanks for staying predictable.

 

[texmaster]

Exactly what I did was back up my claims with Jefferson's own words. I showed exactly what Jefferson's intent was with the Danbury letter, and did that with his relevant writings to his cabinet member.

You refuse to see that, or you just don't get it.

So you can't point to any specific point in that letter that backs up your ridiculous claim that Jefferson wanted to purge God and all religion out of the government. Got it.

Next time just say so.

Now you have gone in yet another direction, with the statement 'the separation of church and state is not in the constitution.' This is not what was discussed, not the point of my posts.

LOL Try actually reading the thread. Its been the subject from the first page.

My point to the other dubious historian was that the Danbury letter was written to make a public statement by Thomas Jefferson that the intent of the 1st Amendment was, according to him, a condemnation of the alliance between church and state.

Establishing a religious sect ie the Anglican sect of Christianity as England has chosen to do which concerned the Baptists whom he wrote the letter to.

The more you dishonestly ignore the history of the letter or who it was to the more ridiculous you look.

Either respond with a linear post or my time with you is being wasted, and I will talk with someone else.

Nothing is more dishonest than quoting an entire post and ducking the individual posts. If that is your definition of honesty, I suggest you open up a dictionary and look up the word because clearly you lost its meaning.

 

[tryreading]

His own words prove he is a Christian.

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."

One other response to you.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote a book coined 'The Jefferson Bible.' He called it The Life And Times Of Jesus Christ, if I remember right.

In this book, Jefferson re-wrote the story of Jesus, omitting all reference to divinity and the performing of miracles. So, in his book, Jesus was a good man with an admirable philosophy, but not the son of God.

Would any Christian you know or have ever known have done this editing to the story of Jesus?

 

[jallman]

To agree with the changes, you almost have to agree with the cited adjectives and reasoning. I would like to see you offer another reading.

What? Maybe what needed to be taught more thoroughly when you went to school was proper citation. He quoted the article for the points it listed...he never once gave any judgment about the language used by the author. He gave reasoning for why he agreed with Texas's changes. :doh

 

[jallman]

I have no problem with them talking about the judeo-christian influences on SOME of the nations founding fathers. Its impossible to say that there was not any influences from it. At the same time, I disagree with them potentially over inflating how much that influence was, and/or down playing the more generalized deist views of many of the Founding Fathers and the notion that while many of the principles were FOUNDED in christian principles the overall feel for how government should function was secular.

I don't think it should be any more than a passing mention in US history class. The language of the Constitution speaks for itself and it would be much more beneficial to discuss some of the history and current events of the time in greater detail. The Judeo Christian and Deist influences of the founding fathers isn't even of all that great importance today as the face of modern religion looks nothing like it did then. It would take weeks of indepth study of just that subject to begin to comprehend the implications of those influences.

I think that magnifying the roles of Aquinas and Calvin, etc is just pure conservative spin on one of their pet arguments.

 

[Black Dog]

Yes I have read everything in your post about that what I was replying too I just got on, and saw the reply.
The fact is you said I need to read the declaration of Independence to get what the founding fathers wanted, and put me in my place ahahahhahahaha another good one.

Again you have no clue. :roll:

The first comment here was using your own words in a completely different post, and I was being sarcastic.

Since you did not respond to that original post (although you found time to thank other posts in the same thread right after), with anything logical or even related for that matter. Yes you indeed were put in your place.

Blackdog you are being the partisan Christan here, since I know what the founding fathers based it on was mason teachings not Christan notions.

Hell half of the things that are in the Constitution is based on Freemasonry Teachings.
Other sources for your educational needs

Partisan literally means organized into political parties. Since I am non denominational, you are wrong again as Christians are not a political party.

Here we go again. Please point out where I have stated that this had no impact on our history? Or our government? This is nothing but red herring argument that has literally nothing to do with anything I posted.

I can be nice, and I can be an asshat as well when people say they put me in my place which you didn't.

And yet you still have not responded to either post with anything relevant to what was typed. You have however made plenty of excuses.

The thing is from you posting is that you said I need to read the declaration of independence to find out what the founding fathers wanted, and posted some stupid ass books about how Speartion of Church and state were lies ect.

Separation of church and state is a misnomer. It was mentioned one time in a letter about a treaty. That's it. People ran with it although it is not a law and not a part of the Constitution.

The only real law is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, thats it. Nothing about government and religion shall have nothing to do with each other. As we found out with the faith based initiative, it is OK for the government to give money to charity's who are faith based. So much for your complete separation.

Do we have some kind of separation of church and state? Yes of course. Do we want a theocracy? No. Were the founders influenced by Christianity? In allot of cases yes. This does not however take anything from other influences.

calming THAT The Danbury letter was written too tell a lie which I doubt you really know that it was lie in fact I highly doubt it was a lie.

Please point out where I said or inferred it was a lie????

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Edit: Too replace the conspiracy nut link with a normal link I have found.

Yea. :roll:

 

[Redress]

Eh, this is absolutely ridiculous in anything but a high school class, and even then it'd have to be looked at very closely if its giving an accurate view. Liberal slanted teaching only is bad....Conservative slanted teaching only is ALSO bad. IF you're going to try to "balance" something you better actually BALANCE it, not just tilt it the other way.

This is why you are both my favorite and least favorite conservative to argue with. My favorite since you actually look at things from outside your own views and arrive at sensible conclusions, and my least favorite since it's so hard to argue against those conclusions.

Liberal or conservative bias in textbooks are both bad. Striving to give a complete view is how we should be doing things. When a school board setting standards for the school splits on ideological lines, it scares me for the future.

 

[Black Dog]

-my emphasis-

The Danbury letter was written for this purpose, you claim?

For which Treaty of Tripoli was this letter written?

Look it up, what I look like a high school teacher?

 

[tryreading]

Look it up, what I look like a high school teacher?

Well, I don't need to look it up. I know the answer. Since you won't give it, I will:

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

The Danbury letter was written in 1802.

You say it was written so the Muslims would sign the Treaty of Tripoli.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1796 and 1797.

You are wrong.

 

[Black Dog]

Well, I don't need to look it up. I know the answer. Since you won't give it, I will:

The Danbury letter was written in 1802.

You say it was written so the Muslims would sign the Treaty of Tripoli.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1796 and 1797.

You are wrong.

I was not talking about that letter.

Two different incidents. I was talking about 1797 the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

As for the Danbury letter, this articles pretty much clears up what really happened.

We must confront the uncomfortable fact that, for much of American history, the phrase "separation of church and state" and its attendant metaphoric formulation, "a wall of separation," have often been expressions of exclusion, intolerance, and bigotry. These phrases have been used to silence people and communities of faith and to exclude them from full participation in public life.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, establishmentarians sought to frighten Americans by deliberately mischaracterizing the religious dissenters' aspirations for disestablishment and liberty of conscience as advocacy for a separation of religion from public life that would inevitably lead to political atheism and rampant licentiousness. This was a political smear. Religious dissenters, indeed, agitated for disestablishment, but like most Americans, they did not wish to separate religious values from public life and policy.

In the bitter presidential campaign of 1800, Jeffersonian Republicans cynically advocated the rhetoric and policy of separation, not to promote religious worship and expression, but to silence the Federalist clergy who had vigorously denounced Jefferson as an infidel and atheist. (Two centuries later, the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies continue to use these phrases to silence people and communities of faith that seek to participate in the public marketplace of ideas armed with ideas informed by spiritual values.) - Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil. (Oxford University) and J.D. (University of Virginia), is a Professor of Justice, Law, and Society at American University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State (New York University Press, 2002).

 

[ludahai]

#2 The letter was to convince a Muslim government we did not care about the religion they followed. This so they would sign the treaty of Tripoli.

Actually, the Arabic version of the Treaty of Tripoli probably never had that article in it.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually, the Arabic version of the Treaty of Tripoli probably never had that article in it.

Fact is we don't know for certain, although I do agree. It doesn't really matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty said, because only the English version was read to and ratified by the United States Senate.

 

[ludahai]

Fact is we don't know for certain, although I do agree. It doesn't really matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty said, because only the English version was read to and ratified by the United States Senate.

But it would have been the Arabic version that was ratified by Tripoli. Treaties only become valid when ratified by BOTH sides. If one side ratifies and one doesn't, it isn't binding on either side. Now, this is a unique (or at least highly unusual) situation where the two sides ratified two different versions of the treaty, but it is safe to imply that only the provisions in the treaty as ratified by EACH party to the treaty could be regarded as properly binding under public international law.

 

[Black Dog]

But it would have been the Arabic version that was ratified by Tripoli. Treaties only become valid when ratified by BOTH sides. If one side ratifies and one doesn't, it isn't binding on either side.

The statement was not really relevant to the treaty as far as international law goes. It was just a statement.

Now, this is a unique (or at least highly unusual) situation where the two sides ratified two different versions of the treaty, but it is safe to imply that only the provisions in the treaty as ratified by EACH party to the treaty could be regarded as properly binding under public international law.

Like I said I agree, but it changes nothing.

 

[texmaster]

One other response to you.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote a book coined 'The Jefferson Bible.' He called it The Life And Times Of Jesus Christ, if I remember right.

In this book, Jefferson re-wrote the story of Jesus, omitting all reference to divinity and the performing of miracles. So, in his book, Jesus was a good man with an admirable philosophy, but not the son of God.

Would any Christian you know or have ever known have done this editing to the story of Jesus?

So you have no evidence and basing this purely off memory. Come back when you have actual proof.

 

[winston53660]

So you have no evidence and basing this purely off memory. Come back when you have actual proof.

Here you can read it for yourself.

The Jefferson Bible - Google Books

 

[texmaster]

Here you can read it for yourself.

The Jefferson Bible - Google Books

Then it should be easy to point out.

Lets see it.

It is certainly not my job to find evidence for someone else's laughable claim.

 

[winston53660]

Then it should be easy to point out.

Lets see it.

It is certainly not my job to find evidence for someone else's laughable claim.

Point out what? That Jefferson eliminated the super natural from his version of the bible?

I guess one would have to read the whole thing and I gave you the link for that. Or you can read this quick synopsis [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible]Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

BTW did you know that the Texas School Board tried to basically eliminate Jefferson from the hiistory books. I wonder why?

 

[Black Dog]

One other response to you.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote a book coined 'The Jefferson Bible.' He called it The Life And Times Of Jesus Christ, if I remember right.

In this book, Jefferson re-wrote the story of Jesus, omitting all reference to divinity and the performing of miracles. So, in his book, Jesus was a good man with an admirable philosophy, but not the son of God.

He did not "rewrite" the story or history of Jesus as in added anything or changed the basic teachings of Jesus. He did omit anything that would be considered a miracle, magical etc.

Would any Christian you know or have ever known have done this editing to the story of Jesus?

Yes, as Jefferson was a Christian. Christian simply means follower of Christ, which he was in an off handed way.

If he was not a follower of the teachings of Christ, would he have felt compelled to show the teaching of Jesus the way he saw them? I doubt it.

This does not make the Jeffersonian Bible any less informative or useful. It still teaches the basic tenants of what Jesus was teaching. Jesus after all was a man, seeing him in that light is not a bad thing. He himself identified himself as the son of man.

I believe he was the son of God, some think he was a profit and still others think he was just a wise man.

It is not really important to anything except Thomas Jefferson, who is dead.

Then it should be easy to point out.

Lets see it.

It is certainly not my job to find evidence for someone else's laughable claim.

Hope this helps.

 

[repeter]

Point out what? That Jefferson eliminated the super natural from his version of the bible?

I guess one would have to read the whole thing and I gave you the link for that. Or you can read this quick synopsis Jefferson Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW did you know that the Texas School Board tried to basically eliminate Jefferson from the hiistory books. I wonder why?

Who is Thomas Jefferson?

That was me pretending to be a high school student in Texas in a few years.