• 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!

14 Wacky "Facts" Kids Will Learn in Louisiana's Voucher Schools

How is promoting this kind of nonsense "an attack on christianity"?


Your post doesn't make any sense, but I know what you're getting at.

Where is Mother Jones when schools force students to sing ballads celebrating Barack Hussein Obama? "mmm-mmm-mmm!"

Where is Mother Jones when college professers are violating the law, by making students pledge their vote to Barack Hussein Obama AND putting their political party on the same form?

Here's a good one for ya...ready? Where is Mother Jones, when schools teach kids that Senator Joe McCarthy had anything to do with the House Un-American Activities Comittee? These are schools that don't even teach kids the difference between The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate.

But, Mother Joke busts their asses to target these private Christian schools? Why do you suppose that is?
 
Your post doesn't make any sense, but I know what you're getting at.

Where is Mother Jones when schools force students to sing ballads celebrating Barack Hussein Obama? "mmm-mmm-mmm!"

Where is Mother Jones when college professers are violating the law, by making students pledge their vote to Barack Hussein Obama AND putting their political party on the same form?

Here's a good one for ya...ready? Where is Mother Jones, when schools teach kids that Senator Joe McCarthy had anything to do with the House Un-American Activities Comittee? These are schools that don't even teach kids the difference between The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate.

But, Mother Joke busts their asses to target these private Christian schools? Why do you suppose that is?

Adpst, do you have any evidence of any of these egregious errors of fact, other than my own Op about McCarthy on DP?
 
It taught everything I needed to know. There was literally only 1 chapter that focused on both the creationist viewpoint and the evolutionary viewpoint. They discussed how "dinosaurs" may be creatures like the leviathan that was referenced in Job. The OP is a spin job that was created to make the curriculum appear devoid of all facts. The curriculum for the different sciences taught me what I needed to know and personally I think they were better than what most of my publicly schooled friends received.

Hmm It appears it was you who got the "spin job" instead of a real education. You sound quite smart so I can see why it wouldn't have mattered to YOU. Not everybody is as quick and those with weaker minds will suffer the worst. Why should the Govt. pay to teach a religion to children? How many hours a week were used for bible related activities?
 
It should be interesting when the first separation of church and state cases from this start to arise.
 
I would have to question the education of the writer and the OP instead of Louisiana school children.
 
I was homeschooled and taught science in HS using the Bob Jones University Press books. I scored a 35 on the science section in the ACT, earned a bachelors in Molecular Biology, scored a 96% in the biology section on the PCAT (top 3% in the nation) as well as being selected to work on a research project and presenting my research twice while winning a 1st place award for best paper presentation at one of the meetings. I am now working on a doctorate (doctor of pharmacy). I think I turned out fine with a strong science background coming out of high school. :shrug:

Congratulations on you success.

I don't really think what they're teaching would effect careers in molecular biology or pharmacy however. Those can be compartmentalized. Also, its probably more useful to measure a population taught with those textbooks than just looking at your individual example.
 
not a fan of falsehoods being taught in schools.

whether it be that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together, or Columbus discovered America...
 
Congratulations on you success.

I don't really think what they're teaching would effect careers in molecular biology or pharmacy however. Those can be compartmentalized. Also, its probably more useful to measure a population taught with those textbooks than just looking at your individual example.

I agree, moreover individual experience is meaningless, because individuals can be outliers, you have to look at people as a whole when talking about public policy.

As an example, of how false a conclusion can be gathered, under Obama my income has tripled (which is true it has) therefore people not doing well are being lazy because it worked for me. See how assuming similarities between me and others can lead to an erroneous statement?
 
I believe slave owners were kind. They had quite an investment in their slaves. They were valuable assets. I think the majority of slave owners probably did not abuse their slaves any more than they would abuse their horses.

A kind slave owner is similar to a generous wife beater.
 
It takes a special kind of apologist to try and downplay the evil that was slavery. Usually they are either ignorant of history or closet racists. So you gotta be careful cause you might confuse outright ignorant folks with racists. In this school's case, the claim is that it wasn't that bad because they weren't beaten daily! Oh great! What a relief. I guess that makes up for being bred, sold and treated like cattle; then having their cultural history and family structures destroyed. I guess it also makes up for 300+ years of zero or near zero amount of rights. Yeah, slavery wasn't as bad as they paint it! I'm convinced now!

The biggest myth told by the conservative right is that it was the progressive ideas of the mid 20th century that destroyed the black family structure. As if it had existed in full force during the 17th century or even after.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's very conducive to building families when the mother doesn't marry the baby-daddy(ies) because she would lose government support. Yet another gift of the progressive ideas of the 20th century.
 
It takes a special kind of apologist to try and downplay the evil that was slavery. Usually they are either ignorant of history or closet racists. So you gotta be careful cause you might confuse outright ignorant folks with racists. In this school's case, the claim is that it wasn't that bad because they weren't beaten daily! Oh great! What a relief. I guess that makes up for being bred, sold and treated like cattle; then having their cultural history and family structures destroyed. I guess it also makes up for 300+ years of zero or near zero amount of rights. Yeah, slavery wasn't as bad as they paint it! I'm convinced now!

The biggest myth told by the conservative right is that it was the progressive ideas of the mid 20th century that destroyed the black family structure. As if it had existed in full force during the 17th century or even after.


I see... so if a person points out a slave owner did not beat, abuse, or kill their slaves.. that is supposed to be an endorsement of slavery?

interesting logic.
 
Yeah, it's very conducive to building families when the mother doesn't marry the baby-daddy(ies) because she would lose government support. Yet another gift of the progressive ideas of the 20th century.

Strange you should mention that, I know a "family" that did just that for that exact reason. Even though they never married, when their 13 yo daughter came home knocked up, they did insist she marry the father. Although they did allow her to drop out of school. She miscarried, but she is still now 14, married and is not getting any education. Gee, wonder if she is going to be on the welfare roles the rest of her life?
 
I see... so if a person points out a slave owner did not beat, abuse, or kill their slaves.. that is supposed to be an endorsement of slavery?

interesting logic.

If you think that screws up their logic, wait until you bring up the fact that the majority of the slaves sold out of Africa were people captured during tribal warfare, by other Black Africans and instead of being killed out of hand, they were sold, thus being a slave actually saved their life. Because of this, Black Africans were also the core of and enabled the continuance of slavery.
 
If you think that screws up their logic, wait until you bring up the fact that the majority of the slaves sold out of Africa were people captured during tribal warfare, by other Black Africans and instead of being killed out of hand, they were sold, thus being a slave actually saved their life. Because of this, Black Africans were also the core of and enabled the continuance of slavery.

well, i'm not gonna get into a slavery discussion... I'm just saying it's ok to tell the truth about things and telling the truth doesn't equal support.

if folks want to believe that every slave as abused, beaten, or killed... fine by me.... it's not true, but they are free to believe as they will.
 
I distrust the article. This article is a smear-article from the partisan Left. If people are to take this "issue" seriously, please provide evidence from sources that are far more objective and respectful.
 
I see... so if a person points out a slave owner did not beat, abuse, or kill their slaves.. that is supposed to be an endorsement of slavery?

interesting logic.

Try learning the definitions of apologetic before you debate "logic":

a·pol·o·get·ic (-pl-jtk) also a·pol·o·get·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
1. Offering or expressing an apology or excuse: an apologetic note; an apologetic smile.
2. Self-deprecating; humble: an apologetic manner.
3. Serving as or containing a formal justification or defense: an apologetic treatise on church doctrine.

MaggieD most certainly provided an excuse for why slavery wasn't all 'that bad' even though it's been widely accepted that the effects of slavery rank up there with the holocaust and the extermination of native americans.
 
6. The KKK was A-OK: "[The Ku Klux] Klan in some areas of the country tried to be a means of reform, fighting the decline in morality and using the symbol of the cross. Klan targets were bootleggers, wife-beaters, and immoral movies. In some communities it achieved a certain respectability as it worked with politicians." —United States History for Christian Schools, 3rd ed., Bob Jones University Press, 2001

There's some historical truth to this, so this article's distortion of this point only adds more weight against it.

In short, it's a garbage article.
 
well, i'm not gonna get into a slavery discussion... I'm just saying it's ok to tell the truth about things and telling the truth doesn't equal support.

if folks want to believe that every slave as abused, beaten, or killed... fine by me.... it's not true, but they are free to believe as they will.

If people want to ignore the past..fine by me..it happened. You'd wonder why they are called Slaves--it doesn't have a positive connotation what-so-ever
 
There's some historical truth to this, so this article's distortion of this point only adds more weight against it.

In short, it's a garbage article.

Good to hear. There's also some historical truth in saying not all Nazis were for the extermination of Jews. However, we all know what Nazis were known for. So introducing that 'historical truth' as anything other than the 3rd equivalent of a fun fact is outright dishonest. :)
 
Try learning the definitions of apologetic before you debate "logic":

a·pol·o·get·ic (-pl-jtk) also a·pol·o·get·i·cal (--kl)
adj.
1. Offering or expressing an apology or excuse: an apologetic note; an apologetic smile.
2. Self-deprecating; humble: an apologetic manner.
3. Serving as or containing a formal justification or defense: an apologetic treatise on church doctrine.

MaggieD most certainly provided an excuse for why slavery wasn't all 'that bad' even though it's been widely accepted that the effects of slavery rank up there with the holocaust and the extermination of native americans.

your inferences do not mean much to anyone else.

I didn't see her as apologizing for slavery whatsoever.... you did.

I think she would agree that slavery was , indeed, very evil... and I think she can also state facts such as not all slaves were abused.

I think it's a testament to you character ( more accurately, lack of character) that you would try to stick her with the label of "slavery apologist".. you oughta be ashamed of yourself
 
Good to hear. There's also some historical truth in saying not all Nazis were for the extermination of Jews. However, we all know what Nazis were known for. So introducing that 'historical truth' as anything other than the 3rd equivalent of a fun fact is outright dishonest. :)

no, it's not dishonest... not all Nazis were supportive of the extermination of Jews... that's just a fact.
 
If people want to ignore the past..fine by me..it happened. You'd wonder why they are called Slaves--it doesn't have a positive connotation what-so-ever


true.. it happened... and true ,slavery is bad ( I don't think " bad" is a strong enough word, actually)
 
Good to hear. There's also some historical truth in saying not all Nazis were for the extermination of Jews. However, we all know what Nazis were known for. So introducing that 'historical truth' as anything other than the 3rd equivalent of a fun fact is outright dishonest. :)

Speaking the truth isn't dishonest, Hatuey. The article makes it seem as though point #6 is factually wrong, even though it's historically true. Likewise when it comes to NAZI's there were quite a few that were against Hitler and his actions. The movie Valkyrie is one good exaple of this, and there were supposedly 42-43 failed assassination attempts on Hitler's life. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about stating the entire truth, instead of stating a group was 100% all bad or all good.
 
I distrust the article. This article is a smear-article from the partisan Left. If people are to take this "issue" seriously, please provide evidence from sources that are far more objective and respectful.

Not to mention it is very limited in scope and examples and in no way proves that these few cases are or are not endemic in the system itself. We are given 14 "facts" of individual instances in a much larger system. Obviously, the intent is for people to apply it to the entire system, but the article simply does not provide any evidence that it is endemic.
 
Back
Top Bottom