'Ultraconservatives' Approve Radical Changes To State Education Curriculum

ACougar said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well then it's all rather subjective, isn't it? If one person agrees with Focus on the Family's or the AFA's agenda, but not GLSEN's, who gets to decide whose agenda is dangerous and which is beneficial? Not everyone thinks that letting middle schoolers read books like "Queer 13" is very conducive to gay/lesbian/straight relations in the schools. Either everyone's agenda is represented or no one's. They don't all have to be respected or even catered to, but this whole, "oh, you big stupid, the gay agenda doesn't exist" or "duh, the feminist agenda is a myth" shouldn't be talking out both sides of their faces by freaking out any time someone they disagree with is given opportunity to present their views.

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.

Click to expand...

That's funny. If I recall the stories of my grandparents I believe they were saying the same thing when they started using the public schools for liberal indoctrination. When they were no longer allowed to use primers that taught the ABCs using Bible verses and things like that. It all just keeps coming back around. It's backlash. You can't completely convert an institution to one side and not expect backlash. That's the problem with the public education system in general. You have a bunch of adults fighting back and forth about how to best indoctrinate the kids, but no one is really giving a rat's behind about the educational welfare of the students.

You tell me kids are at a greater academic advantage now than they were fifty years ago. You tell me if kids fifty years ago spent more time worrying about whether or not they'd get shot in the locker room than they did passing a language arts test. You tell me if kids fifty years ago were better versed in geometry or how to still have sex without having to worry about pregnancy and STDs. You tell me if fifty years ago kids were graduating with less knowledge of science and a full grasp on how to "tolerate everyone". Kids today are getting a half-pot education and that's why they're so ill-adjusted for the real world. People like to claim home schoolers aren't well-adjusted. That's a crock. You look at most seniors in public (or even some private) high schools today and tell me how prepared they are for the real world. Guess what - knowing all the pretty little PC buzz words won't help them in the real world. Nobody at the job interview is going to care if they took sensitivity training their sophomore year if they can't read past a fourth grade level.

The teachers' unions and the special interest groups have ruined the educational system. They've turned our schools into progressive think tanks and now the consequence is the backlash from the extreme religious right. Problem is with all of these adults fighting amongst themselves in the quest to be the most enlightened or to be correct the kids are the ones getting the shaft.

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

Click to expand...

Probably Rousseu given the time frame.

Did Locke have much influence on revolutions besides ours?

ac said:

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.

Click to expand...

I object to that idea too, but don't see how those papers justify McCarthy unless you take an ends justify the means approach as I mentioned.

Although you probably would be right in saying justifying McCarthyism is what they plan to do with them. As I said, it seems they want to substitute one sidedness for one sidedness.

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?

Click to expand...

Again, you're right, it probably will be a soapbox rather than objective as possible history.

I don't see how you could have reached that conclusion... especially if you include the religious right as part of the conservative movement.

Click to expand...

What do you mean "especially"? Outside the religious right, the ultraconservaties are almost libertarians. Or do you mean the so-called "neo-cons"( I think they're moderate liberals with a militaristic bent who use conservative buzzwords)?

And I arrived at that conclusion because ultraliberals don't seem to value individual rights as much, and seem much more totalitarian.

Ultraconservatives have a list of vices they want illegal and want the State to promote their religion's values, ultra liberals want to regulate every aspect of life (outside the bedroom between consenting adults) to turn me into the Politically Correct New Soviet Man of Greentopia.

I look to the UK and it's Nanny State as where ultraliberalism will lead.

I know people like to paint the religious right as the Christian Taliban, but I don't see it.

note; I am not defending the RR or saying they are not harmful to liberty, they generally just don't seem to be willing to go nearly as far as liberals to build Utopia.

Blackguard_ said:

Probably Rousseu given the time frame.

Did Locke have much influence on revolutions besides ours?

Click to expand...

The French were eating up English philosophy at the time.

So, yes, Locke was an influence.

ACougar said:

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.

Click to expand...

The next time Texas wants to secede...just let em go.
Joe McCarthy wasn't such a bad guy?
Thomas Aquinas was more central to the founding of the country than Thomas Jefferson?
The Enlightenment period wasn't relevant to our founding?

Yes, there is such thing as a dangerous level of stupid.

There is a BIG difference between education and indoctrination. These people are afraid of the facts because they percieve them to have a liberal bias.

oldbetang said:

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.

Click to expand...

You were not explicit that this is part of a world history class. I'd actually side with going light on American figures in a world history class for Americans, who one would assume already have been taught about those people in their American History classes.

Every student in Texas needs to be issued a copy of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen.