Slashdot Mirror


Texas Textbooks Battle Is Actually an American War

ideonexus writes "I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose. This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America. The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals."

4 of 1,252 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How bad could it be? by mi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    George W. Bush was born in Connecticut. Although he went to elementary school in Texas, his high-school years were spent in Massachusetts. He then went to study in Yale and, interestingly, had a slightly better GPA, than John Kerry — his opponent during 2004 elections, who kept his academic record hidden, while his followers mocked Bush's.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  2. Re:How bad could it be? by anglophobe_0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We'll see how long that lasts.

  3. Re:The keys to easy fascism by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mussolini was Italian. Did he actually write that in English?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. Re:Translate this for me by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is truly fascinating. Tell me again - is it a different God, or did God change his mind about what morality is?

    Lol.. I guess you really do not understand anything do you? It's the same God, and no, morality has not changed, just what he required from people following him. Surely you do not think morality only exists within the context of religion do you? I'm puzzled to why you are so stuck on morality when you are arguing that because someone did something under one set of commands that everyone else related to those people are somehow responsible or obligated to that action. This doesn't exist anywhere else in life, why should it exist here?

    Christians, as you consider them, weren't fully realized until the Roman empire codified the faith. After Jesus you still have Paul interpreting everything that Christ said, and after that you still have followers fighting over which books were true and not true, and after that, since it doesn't seem like you're a Catholic, Christianity wasn't realized until the 16th or 17th centuries, when dogmas and bibles were re-interpreted again. What is important is that YHVH (or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or God, or Lord, depending on your translation) either has a universal value system or he does not.

    First, I'm not catholic, I don't even believe in organized religion. Second, I know all of which you have mentioned about except the apostolic Christians existed within the same century as Jesus did. You do not have to wait centuries or hundreds of years to see the term in existence. The romans coined the term when Jesus was alive and it exists in roman writings. As for the value system God would have, it's both universal and not. You see, God can change it because it is his and his will. I'm not sure why you would think he couldn't change his values or where you are attempting to go with this.

    If you believe the whole bible is true, then he does not have a universal value system, and he could decide tomorrow that all Hindus should be put to death, and as long you believed he said so, you'd consider it a moral action, because God said so.

    Your somewhat correct, but the evidence in his commanding the hindus to death would have to overwhelmingly be supportive of God actually ordering it. It isn't like you can walk down the street claiming God Spoke to you and we need to kill all hindus now. Maybe in the past when the covenant was places with leaders of people and God spread his word through them, but that is one thing Christianity and Jesus changed. And yes, I do know that history hasn't shown that people have learned this well. But that all goes to the distinction between the man doing something in someone's name verses someone making something happen. I could say that you ordered me to kill all the hindus, when the reality is that you only used their deaths as an extreme example. You see, me claiming to be doing something in your name doesn't make it true.

    If you don't believe the whole bible is true, and you want to cherry pick the parts you like (such as the New Testament), then by your own definition it holds no higher ground than any other man made philosophy. It just contains additional fantastic assertions, like water can be turned into wine, or people regularly rise from the dead, or virgins can give birth. And all of these are base and unimpressive miracles, common to many ancient myths, but probably seemed totally awesome to the illiterate goat herders of the 1st century.

    I do not want to cherry pick anything. I simply want it to be presented in context- something you have had an extremely difficult time with. I'm sorry that everything you believed turned out to be completely out of context, but hey, that's your fault, not mine. As for it holding higher ground or not, I never said it did. That is something that you somehow imposed here.

    Somehow though, you