Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum

[tryreading]

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

'The Jefferson Bible' is a commonly known item. You aren't aware of it? Yet you're arguing his religious beliefs...

 

[hazlnut]

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

text, you've seriously never heard of the Jefferson Bible?? Good God, man!!

Jesus H. Christ, get over to Boarders Books and buy yourself a copy.

Amazon.com: The Jefferson Bible (0046442077149): Thomas Jefferson, Forrest Church: Books

Honestly, I don't see it as anything more than a paraphrasing of the New Testament without all the magic and miracles... The stories definitely lose something...

But the effort by Jefferson does give you insight into his views on organized religion.

 

[jallman]

What level? You mean the level of federally funded Texas school board level?



It doesn't have to. It simply has to give preference to one religion specifically.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

OK, now show me where that bars States from including religious instruction in schools. :shrug:

 

[tryreading]

He was Important to the history of this country. I think politically speaking he was ahead of his time. Other than this, people act like he was THE founding father, he was not. He was one of many that had differing views.

He is pretty much the only one that said anything at all about the "wall of separation" so naturally he would come up.

Madison used the phrase at least several times.

 

[Black Dog]

Doesn't clear anything up. You have Jefferson's intent below, in his own words to his attorney general at the time of the penning of the letter.

Below what?

Your info from 2002 isn't going to change Jefferson's intent.

Anyway, post a link.

And your info from no place is going to do what? :lol:

What link? I gave his name and credentials, if you are that interested find it yourself.

 

[Black Dog]

Madison used the phrase at least several times.

That's 2 out of how many?

GEORGE WASHINGTON, JAMES MADISON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN ADAMS, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, GEORGE MASON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ROGER SHERMAN, JAMES WILSON

Oh thats right 11! Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787. James Madison was his political protégé. Go figure?

Now this has nothing at all to do with what is happening in Texas. No law is being passed and no wall exists in reality outside of the establishing of a federal or state religion as in passing of laws. This is the wall he was referring to. Assuming anything else is putting things into the Constitution that are just not in it for a reason.

 

[ADK_Forever]

Obviously you weren't. Please point out where someone said anything even close.

To need to be shown that people believe this country is based on Christian beliefs shows me you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And now it is obvious you don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, or their unique significance to our laws.

Here's a nice link for you to study.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

You're welcome.

 

[Dav]

Show me a story documenting this, I will care. Slanting history for political reasons is bad no matter who does it.

No story, just personal experience. Which was kind of my point.

 

[Morality Games]

Oh thats right 11! Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787. James Madison was his political protégé. Go figure?

I have a hard time imagining Madison as Jefferson's protege.

 

[Redress]

No story, just personal experience. Which was kind of my point.

I stand by my comments. If there is a liberal bias in textbooks or teaching, it is just as bad as a conservative bias. The problem is the bias, not the direction of the bias. We should give our kids the facts, and teach them how to make informed decisions, not make those decisions for them.

 

[jallman]

I stand by my comments. If there is a liberal bias in textbooks or teaching, it is just as bad as a conservative bias. The problem is the bias, not the direction of the bias. We should give our kids the facts, and teach them how to make informed decisions, not make those decisions for them.

You aren't seriously denying the consistent liberal slant in academics though. Seriously?

 

[Black Dog]

To need to be shown that people believe this country is based on Christian beliefs shows me you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You are so dishonest it is not even funny any more. This is a lie.

I was talking about in this thread. My direct responce was...

#1 No one has said America was founded on Christianity, not a soul. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...cial-studies-curriculum-9.html#post1058765439

Now please point out how refering to people responding in this thread about this country being founded on Chrstianity has anything even remotly to do with what you just accused me of? Here let me help you...

Nothing.

And now it is obvious you don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, or their unique significance to our laws.

You have got to be kidding. :roll:

You broght it up, not me...

There are four references to a "deity" found in the Declaration of Independence: "Nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge," and "Divine Providence." That's it. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...cial-studies-curriculum-8.html#post1058765301

Then you tried to change the subject to the Constitution.

Here's a nice link for you to study.
The Christian Nation Myth

You're welcome.

I did not thank you for a thing buddy.

Infidels.org? :rofl

 

[Black Dog]

I have a hard time imagining Madison as Jefferson's protege.

Why do you say that?

 

[repeter]

You aren't seriously denying the consistent liberal slant in academics though. Seriously?

You mean the inclusion, in depth, of the civil rights issues?

 

[jallman]

You mean the inclusion, in depth, of the civil rights issues?

No, I said and mean the liberal slant in academics.

 

[repeter]

No, I said and mean the liberal slant in academics.

Could you elaborate on some specifics please?

 

[jallman]

Could you elaborate on some specifics please?

Refusal to acknowledge the role of religion in the works of the founding fathers. Harsher grading on "politically incorrect" work despite it being accurate. Injection of anti-American and anti-Christian rhetoric into lesson plans. Bias in presenting the civil rights movement and who was behind it. Injection of racially divisive rhetoric into lesson plans.

I could go on but that's enough to start with.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I did not thank you for a thing buddy.

I forgive you anyway.

 

[hazlnut]

To need to be shown that people believe this country is based on Christian beliefs shows me you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Well... 9 people on the Texas Board Believe that.

But the rest of us know this country, its Constitution was based on the Roman Republic with influence from Jonh Locke and the Mangna Carta.

By the rest of us, I mean, anyone who took a U.S. History class. But I guess, students taking U.S. History in texas high schools will get the fringe-right fantasy version.

 

[Redress]

You aren't seriously denying the consistent liberal slant in academics though. Seriously?

I think that teachers may tend to be more liberal than not, but not that curriculums are. They may be, but I have seen no solid proof or even strong evidence of that. Further, it is irrelevant to my position, which is that basing textbooks and curriculums around political bias is wrong, no matter who does it.

 

[jallman]

Well... 9 people on the Texas Board Believe that.

But the rest of us know this country, its Constitution was based on the Roman Republic with influence from Jonh Locke and the Mangna Carta.

By the rest of us, I mean, anyone who took a U.S. History class. But I guess, students taking U.S. History in texas high schools will get the fringe-right fantasy version.

The language of the Constution and the Declaration of Independence say otherwise. Also, a study of the lives of the various founding father's indicates a completely different story.

Christian society did influence them whether you like it or not. Calling it a "fringe-right fantasy version" until you choke on the repetition is not going to change fact.

 

[repeter]

Refusal to acknowledge the role of religion in the works of the founding fathers.

Acknowledged.

Harsher grading on "politically incorrect" work despite it being accurate.

Occasionally, this is useful, but I agree, for the most part, this is pretty stupid.

Injection of anti-American and anti-Christian rhetoric into lesson plans.

Could you explain a little bit more on this? I think that it can be useful to view what others think of us, like viewing the sentiments that Iranians presented during the hostage crises. IMO, it helps build a sense of nationalism, an idea of America vs. them.

Bias in presenting the civil rights movement and who was behind it. Injection of racially divisive rhetoric into lesson plans.

Yeah, not going to argue that one. I personally wouldn't mind learning about some of the darker sides of the Civil Rights movements. And, again, the rhetoric is necessary, because exposure is a key part of understanding, and unity.

 

[Black Dog]

Well... 9 people on the Texas Board Believe that.

Not really, but keep making up stories based on hot air.

But the rest of us know this country, its Constitution was based on the Roman Republic with influence from Jonh Locke and the Mangna Carta.

As well as Christianity. To deny it's influence is just closing your eyes to history.

You and ADK are so closed minded you think anytime someone says Christian culture and society etc had an influence on our country is saying "people believe this country is based on Christian beliefs" this is not the case.

By the rest of us, I mean, anyone who took a U.S. History class. But I guess, students taking U.S. History in texas high schools will get the fringe-right fantasy version.

:lol:

 

[repeter]

I've got to know...whats the reasoning that religion didn't influence the founding fathers?

 

[jallman]

Acknowledged.

Not really. Especially not by the time you get into college.

Occasionally, this is useful, but I agree, for the most part, this is pretty stupid.



Could you explain a little bit more on this? I think that it can be useful to view what others think of us, like viewing the sentiments that Iranians presented during the hostage crises. IMO, it helps build a sense of nationalism, an idea of America vs. them.

I don't think it's necessarily bad to understand how others view us but I have gone into classrooms here at Berendo Middle School and seen Che Guevera posters displayed prominently in classrooms. There's also a tendancy by faculty to take a decidedly anti-American stance when it comes to current events. I know that anecdotal evidence is pretty irrelevant to a debate, but I will share this with you: I had a US History teacher in high school who gave us a slide show of Japanese internment camps in the US but never once mentioned the atrocities the Japanese were perpetrating in Manchuria and other districts of China at the same time. Also, the pure evil that was occuring in Germany took a back seat to the fact that we dropped the bomb on Japan.

I don't think my experience was at all singular or unique.

Yeah, not going to argue that one. I personally wouldn't mind learning about some of the darker sides of the Civil Rights movements. And, again, the rhetoric is necessary, because exposure is a key part of understanding, and unity.

I think it should be discussed. Don't get me wrong; I have zero opposition to exposure to the truth even when the truth is ugly. However, I don't think it should be taught with an implication that it's still the way of the world or that anyone in that class at that time has any right to be butthurt with the student of a different race sitting right next to them.