'Ultraconservatives' Approve Radical Changes To State Education Curriculum

[ACougar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html

Texas Textbook MASSACRE: 'Ultraconservatives' Approve Radical Changes To State Education Curriculum

If you think the conservative movement is harmless this should serve as a wake up call. The greatest threat to our liberty doesn't come from Jihadists or even greedy bankers, it comes from the conservative movement. You'd think it should go without saying, however it's high time we added "abide by constitutional law" in the oath of loyalty public servents take so they can't run off and decide the constitution say's whetever they think it should say.

 

[USincognito]

The rewriting of history by these yahoos is almost Stalinesque.

 

[katautumn]

The fearful tirade was amusing at best. With that said, I don't necessarily agree with removing teachings about Jefferson from the textbooks. Of course, I'd kind of like to see this article run in another source besides left-leaning HuffPo. I mentioned in the other thread (in the politics forum, I believe?) that this response of the school board was backlash for a liberal group trying to have teachings on Daniel Boone, Christopher Columbus, General Patton, Independence Day and the Liberty Bell removed from the textbooks. They did that in response to the school board proposing to remove instruction on radical union organizer Cesar Chavez from the history lessons. It's just been a really stupid back and forth battle between both parties.

Sad thing is that regardless of what happens the kids stand to lose nothing, because our educational system consists of little more than indoctrination into the PC crowd anyway. When was the last time you saw a kid read a book that didn't include Japanese caricatures in them or a video game strategy guide or about stupid Emo squirrel devouring sparklepires? I'll bet half the kids in America don't know who Ray Bradbury was, but I'll bet they know it's not cool to use the word "lame" because it might offend someone in a wheelchair. I'll bet more kids in high school know how to dress a banana in a condom than how to complete long division.

And, for what it's worth, the school board isn't rewriting history. They're merely substituting balance for one-sidedness. The historical content is valid. It just isn't what most people want to hear about in history class because, ya know, it involves inconvenient religious stuff. There really should be a balance. How about instead of leaving out Columbus and singing praises to Cesar Chavez we compromise and teach about the contribution of both?

 

[moonkitty]

What's next? Now kids, when you hear thunder it is only God and the angles going bowling. It has nothing to do with the sudden increase of temperature and pressure surrounding the lighting bolt that creates a sonic shock wave. That's just Satan trying to device you with science and logic.

 

[Smidlee]

From what I've heard both side are trying to change the history books. This article probably means the left is losing so they are using fear hoping to gain support for their view. No matter who wins I seriously doubt it will cause American to lose their homes and jobs like the bank scandals have done.

 

[interpreter]

I never did care for Thomas Jefferson much. He wrote his own Bible, taking out all the miracles performed by Jesus.

 

[ACougar]

Feel free to google Texas board of education and read right wing glee about what happened in Texas.

This was a huge win for the Christian Reconstructionist movement and that should be very disturbing to anyone who doesn't believe in the merger of Church and State.

The fearful tirade was amusing at best. With that said, I don't necessarily agree with removing teachings about Jefferson from the textbooks. Of course, I'd kind of like to see this article run in another source besides left-leaning HuffPo. I mentioned in the other thread (in the politics forum, I believe?) that this response of the school board was backlash for a liberal group trying to have teachings on Daniel Boone, Christopher Columbus, General Patton, Independence Day and the Liberty Bell removed from the textbooks. They did that in response to the school board proposing to remove instruction on radical union organizer Cesar Chavez from the history lessons. It's just been a really stupid back and forth battle between both parties.

Sad thing is that regardless of what happens the kids stand to lose nothing, because our educational system consists of little more than indoctrination into the PC crowd anyway. When was the last time you saw a kid read a book that didn't include Japanese caricatures in them or a video game strategy guide or about stupid Emo squirrel devouring sparklepires? I'll bet half the kids in America don't know who Ray Bradbury was, but I'll bet they know it's not cool to use the word "lame" because it might offend someone in a wheelchair. I'll bet more kids in high school know how to dress a banana in a condom than how to complete long division.

And, for what it's worth, the school board isn't rewriting history. They're merely substituting balance for one-sidedness. The historical content is valid. It just isn't what most people want to hear about in history class because, ya know, it involves inconvenient religious stuff. There really should be a balance. How about instead of leaving out Columbus and singing praises to Cesar Chavez we compromise and teach about the contribution of both?

 

[ACougar]

That doesn't change the fact that he was the principle architect of the Declaration of Independance, one of the most influential founding fathers, and the President who made the Louisiana purchase.

Attempts to remove Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison or Washington from the history books should send out alarm bells to anyone who cares about our history.

I never did care for Thomas Jefferson much. He wrote his own Bible, taking out all the miracles performed by Jesus.

 

[ACougar]

I think it's important that people understand the agenda and in these instance the agenda is out there in the open.

The rewriting of history by these yahoos is almost Stalinesque.

 

[Fantine]

Currently, a big state like Texas wields a lot of power. It orders so many textbooks that the textbook publishers gear their content to their big customer and everyone else is stuck with the same content.

Hopefully, as e-textbooks become more common, it will be relatively easy to put in a few adaptations for the revisionist fanatics without altering content and rewriting history for the vast majority of school boards with integrity.

 

[Blackguard_]

Attempts to remove Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison or Washington from the history books should send out alarm bells to anyone who cares about our history.

Agreed, but so should people who want to talk about Mccarthyism and exclude the Verona Papers and who want to call us a democracy instead of a constitutional republic (although that issue depends a bit on how it's handled.)

Maybe excluding the gold standard too, depending on how much they talk about the economy.

The rewriting of history by these yahoos is almost Stalinesque.

Ironic since it's the other side who wants to conveniently ignore evidence of communist infiltration.

No, we can't imply McCarthy may have been right. History must remember him as leading a paranoid witch hunt.

The only reason I can think of to not mention that, aside from being a fellow traveler, is the fear students will take a "the ends justify the means" view of McCarthy's tactics, but there is no way to avoid issues that like if you take an honest "warts and all" approach to history unless the school pushes an ethical system as well.

The greatest threat to our liberty doesn't come from Jihadists or even greedy bankers, it comes from the conservative movement.

Really? I thought the ultraconservatives wanted much less control over our lives than the ultraliberals.

You'd think it should go without saying, however it's high time we added "abide by constitutional law" in the oath of loyalty public servents take so they can't run off and decide the constitution say's whetever they think it should say.

Between bad research, that 'living document' nonsense, and just plain ignoring the constitution, that's not going to stop them. What it is high time to do is to remove people who ignore the constitution or take the Humpty Dumpty approach to constitutional interpretation. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

They're merely substituting balance for one-sidedness.

Sounds more like they're substiting one sidedness for one sidedness.

 

[katautumn]

I think it's important that people understand the agenda and in these instance the agenda is out there in the open.

How come anytime any other socio-political group does something to call it an "agenda" is like speaking blasphemies against them, but any time the smallest of religious right groups does something it's "AH LOOK! THEIR AGENDA IS SHOWING! FEAR!!! FEAR!!!"? If these folks have an agenda then so does NARAL, so does GLSEN, so does the NAACP, so does the SPLC, etc. The double standards I survey here are astounding.

May I ask why this is being considered reconstructionism? Is this any better than the liberal organization trying to have mentions of the Liberty Bell and Christopher Columbus removed, because they are "offensive to some"? Why isn't anybody else mentioning the other players involved in this? You have one side that wants to see Christianity interjected into the teachings and the other wants to not only keep it out of the schools entirely, but also remove anything that offends their radical liberal viewpoint.

So, could we concede that it's one big fail all the way around and nobody is truly thinking of the kids?

 

[ACougar]

Agreed, but so should people who want to talk about Mccarthyism and exclude the Verona Papers and who want to call us a democracy instead of a constitutional republic (although that issue depends a bit on how it's handled.)

I don't think discussing espionage between the Soviet Union and the US is a bad thing, however I do object to the idea that the Verona papers somehow justifies or excuses McCarthyism.

Maybe excluding the gold standard too, depending on how much they talk about the economy.

The reasons for moving away from a gold standard are complex, are the pro's and con's really going to be discussed fairly in terms of security vs growth or will this be a soapbox arguement for returning to a gold standard?

Really? I thought the ultraconservatives wanted much less control over our lives than the ultraliberals.

I don't see how you could have reached that conclusion... especially if you include the religious right as part of the conservative movement. From a social standpoint liberals are most often pushing for human rights and civil liberties while conservatives are pushing against those things. From an economic standpoint liberals are generally struggling to protect people and the environment from greed and the abuse of power.

Between bad research, that 'living document' nonsense, and just plain ignoring the constitution, that's not going to stop them. What it is high time to do is to remove people who ignore the constitution or take the Humpty Dumpty approach to constitutional interpretation. "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

I'm tired of people claiming to be loyal to the constitution when what thier really loyal too is an understanding of the constitution which contradicts constitutional law.

 

[oldbetang]

The fearful tirade was amusing at best. With that said, I don't necessarily agree with removing teachings about Jefferson from the textbooks. Of course, I'd kind of like to see this article run in another source besides left-leaning HuffPo. I mentioned in the other thread (in the politics forum, I believe?) that this response of the school board was backlash for a liberal group trying to have teachings on Daniel Boone, Christopher Columbus, General Patton, Independence Day and the Liberty Bell removed from the textbooks. They did that in response to the school board proposing to remove instruction on radical union organizer Cesar Chavez from the history lessons. It's just been a really stupid back and forth battle between both parties.

Sad thing is that regardless of what happens the kids stand to lose nothing, because our educational system consists of little more than indoctrination into the PC crowd anyway. When was the last time you saw a kid read a book that didn't include Japanese caricatures in them or a video game strategy guide or about stupid Emo squirrel devouring sparklepires? I'll bet half the kids in America don't know who Ray Bradbury was, but I'll bet they know it's not cool to use the word "lame" because it might offend someone in a wheelchair. I'll bet more kids in high school know how to dress a banana in a condom than how to complete long division.

And, for what it's worth, the school board isn't rewriting history. They're merely substituting balance for one-sidedness. The historical content is valid. It just isn't what most people want to hear about in history class because, ya know, it involves inconvenient religious stuff. There really should be a balance. How about instead of leaving out Columbus and singing praises to Cesar Chavez we compromise and teach about the contribution of both?

That sums it up nicely.

 

[oldbetang]

Thomas Jefferson is not being removed from the history textbooks.

 

[ACougar]

How come anytime any other socio-political group does something to call it an "agenda" is like speaking blasphemies against them, but any time the smallest of religious right groups does something it's "AH LOOK! THEIR AGENDA IS SHOWING! FEAR!!! FEAR!!!"? If these folks have an agenda then so does NARAL, so does GLSEN, so does the NAACP, so does the SPLC, etc. The double standards I survey here are astounding.

There is nothing wrong with having an "agenda" the problem is the agenda itself.

I don't agree with NARAL, however thier agenda is clear and thier goal is transparant. GLSEN is about ending gay/lesbian discrimination in schools, that IMO is good agenda. NAACP is about trying to level the playing field so that all Americans have an equal opportunity to be sucessful, I think that's a good thing. SPLC has an agenda as well, it's to fight hate and bigotry... that's an agenda I support as well.

If your goal is to see society governed by the "law of God" as codified in the Bible and you have the power to start rewriting textbooks... you have an agenda that should alarm anyone who loves liberty.

 

[ACougar]

9:30 – Board member Cynthia Dunbar wants to change a standard having students study the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. She wants to drop the reference to Enlightenment ideas (replacing with “the writings of”) and to Thomas Jefferson. She adds Thomas Aquinas and others. Jefferson’s ideas, she argues, were based on other political philosophers listed in the standards. We don’t buy her argument at all. Board member Bob Craig of Lubbock points out that the curriculum writers clearly wanted to students to study Enlightenment ideas and Jefferson. Could Dunbar’s problem be that Jefferson was a Deist? The board approves the amendment, taking Thomas Jefferson OUT of the world history standards.

Blogging the Social Studies Debate IV « Texas Freedom Network

Thomas Jefferson is not being removed from the history textbooks.

 

[oldbetang]

Blogging the Social Studies Debate IV « Texas Freedom Network

That doesn't counter my statement. Jefferson is only being removed from that one arena; the study of the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. He is not being wiped from the textbooks altogether, as the far-left types would have us believe.

 

[seashale76]

That doesn't counter my statement. Jefferson is only being removed from that one arena; the study of the impact of Enlightenment ideas on political revolutions from 1750 to the present. He is not being wiped from the textbooks altogether, as the far-left types would have us believe.

To take that out is to ignore the facts. Social Studies texts are notoriously Disneyfied as it is.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Realistically Jefferson isn't an important Enlightenment thinker and probably his place in the US curriculum regarding the Enlightenment is distorted by national pride.

I would be interested in who they are taking to represent the Enlightenment though.