Slashdot Mirror


Texas Approves Conservative Curriculum

Macharius writes "Today, the Texas Board of Education approved 11-4 a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the role of Christianity in American history and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light. The article goes on to mention that Texas's textbook approvals carry less influence than they used to due to digital localization technology, but is that even measurable given how many millions of these textbooks will still be used across the country?"

16 of 999 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's about time by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you like the fire department? The public library? Public education? Guess what...you like socialism! We really need to throw away the false dichotomy between Capitalism and Socialism. There is room for the two to coexist. I am a Christian myself, but I will fight to the death to prevent a Theocracy of any kind from taking hold in the United States.

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  2. Another Chinese Import by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Frankly I'm surprised the politicization of classroom materials hasn't been more flagrant and widespread. I'm also wondering why there isn't more of a flip-flop between liberal and conservative influence on school curriculums as voting blocks swing between conservatives and liberals?

    The ping pong of history books that was dramatized in 1984 was also a reality as power shifted and people and principles went in and out of favor in Chinese and Russian totalitarian states. I imagine now we will see it here.

    Did we think we were going to make China more democratic? We are the tail and they are the dog. We are becoming more like them every day. The high castes of the conservative party long for it. They see the setup of China's ruling class - the iron grip on history - the apparently successful stifling of dissent - and salivate.

    If Thomas Jefferson can be "deemphasized" in American History and the separation of church and state can be erased from the history books, there is no longer any break on this. Freedom of ("liberal") speech is not far behind. Make no mistake, this is a bellweather for how much further our society can fall. It also suggests the way America could balkanize, as different regions of the country no longer share a common history.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  3. Re:What? by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I, as a former conservative Christian (now an atheist), find it strange that they feel that god needs the government's help to promote his message. They're going to help GOD ALMIGHTY to get HIS message out because he's obviously having a hard time doing it himself. Kind of like how they are fucking screaming mad if you suggest taking "In God We Trust" off of the currency, meanwhile we spend just about as much as the rest of the world combined on our military.

    In God We Trust... but not with much.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  4. Re:"I reject notion of separation of church and st by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Liberals and other anti-Christians"

    I hate to break it to you, pal, but the vast majority of liberals in this country are also Christians.

    It's pretty pathetic seeing the right-wing talk about 'states rights', when they only care about that concept when it suits them.

  5. Render unto Cesar. by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would think more Christians would be for removing "In God We Trust" from the money. For one thing, it's obviously a huge lie. Also, it's really ironic if you think about it.

    If they want to put something that reflects Christian values on the money, they should use "Render unto Cesar".

    1. Re:Render unto Cesar. by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Modern American Christians? That would never fly- they don't believe in rendering anything unto Ceasar, they think taxes are evil all the while living in states that receive more than a dollar in federal aid for every dollar taken.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  6. Re:Why Texas? by bughunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clearly you don't live in California. Only outside CA is the political system perceived as Liberal. Those of us who live within the state have learned that there are a few enclaves of urban liberalism, surrounded by by vast areas of rural conservatism rivaling those of Kansas or Texas.

    And then there are a number of conservative urban areas, too, like San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield and Orange County.

    But the state continues to be portrayed by the rest of the country as a homogeneous liberal wasteland, populated entirely by hippies and surfers.

    In reality, NY State is more liberal than the state of CA.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  7. Re:Hahahahahah by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FYI, they removed the requirement that students study the impact of ideas from the Enlightenment and Thomas Jefferson's role as an Enlightenment scholar. Instead, they added Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, and removed the specific reference to the Enlightenment.

    The original requirement was that students be able to:

    "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present."

    It is now:

    "explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone."

    This is, quite frankly, a travesty. The first list had an actual thrust to it (you know, Enlightenment scholars in 1750+). This one is closer to just a list of philosophers that a council of morons thought sounded good - after all, Thomas Aquinas totally proved God exists! And John Calvin came up with Protestantism! Totally what every schoolchild in Texas (and by extension, a large part of the rest of the country) needs to know!

  8. Re:Anonymous Coward by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey here's something the "lazy democrats" tried to pass, but failed:

    12:28 - Board member Mavis Knight offers the following amendment: "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others." Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state.

    12:32 - Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn't intend for separation of church and state in America. And she's off on a long lecture about why the Founders intended to promote religion. She calls this amendment "not historically accurate."

    12:35 - Knight's amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10. Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.

    12:38 - Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.

  9. Re:Why Texas? by bcboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    California isn't half so liberal as you apparently believe it is. While the legislature is dominated by Democrats, there is a very strong Republican political machine in the state that's able to deadlock the legislative process. They've also elected quite a few governors, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson. The state school board is rather conservative. Overall, it looks a lot like Washington does now: the Dems, though in the majority, are ineffective. The Republicans are obstructionist. The policies that are implemented are not strongly liberal.

  10. Re:What? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is that this country was founded on religious freedoms. Without those religious fundamentalists fighting and dieing for their beliefs you would still be stuck under the rule of the Anglican church.

    Like England is? Last I looked, they were a pretty secular, post-xian society

    Or you could have ended up lie - OMG - Canada. Canada didn't fight to be free of Britain, and look a them - still a British colony - except they're NOT ... and they're also a post-xian society, with universal health care.

    If you fundies brains were dynamite, you couldn't even blow your own noses. So blow it out your ear.

  11. Re:Anonymous Coward by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I have just pointed out, the new rules state that Thomas Jefferson's writings were not important to the Revolution. As everyone today knows, he was the primary author of the Deceleration of Independence. But school children taught under the new rules will NOT know that.

    It is one thing to disagree with a belief or have a political view and want to support it. It is another thing entirely to re-write history with absolutely no regard for the truth. This is simply shameful.

  12. Re:Hahahahahah by Thangodin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ben was a regular at the salons of Paris and London; the organizer of one of these said that of the members, most were atheists, and the rest were still deciding. Franklin never came out and declared, but he probably didn't do so because he thought religion was useful rather than true. It is also interesting that at the time of foundation, about 18% of the American populace attended church regularly (Washington was one of those who gave up in disgust). This number has been growing since then, with a large spike during the Weslyan revival.

    The ignorance of history is a major factor here. The founders lived in a world where the excesses of religion wielding political power was a very present thing. Thanks to the separation of church and state, we have been afforded the luxury of forgetting this. But any ideology that deals in absolutes, whether it be secular or religious, will evoke the absolute to disdain lesser goods--and when you think you hold the absolute Truth or Good, all other goods become worthless. The perfect is not just the enemy of the good, it is the mortal enemy of all goods. Life, liberty, happiness, charity, tolerance, knowledge, reason, and anything that is not held up as absolute will be cast aside, along with all who would defend them. Billions have died, and will die, for the idols of dogma. If religion has an evolutionary advantage, it is probably in strengthening ingroup solidarity at the expense of outgroup antagonism; effective in prehistory, catastrophic in a world of globalisation. I suspect that religions will, in this century, claim at least a billion victims, and make Stalin, Hitler, and Mao look like amateurs. In the aftermath, Richard Dawkins will sound positively mild and conciliatory.

    There are almost as many Gods as there are believers, and the first thing you will discover when the state imposes religion is that the state's God is not your God. Europe is secular precisely because most European countries have entrenched state religions. The separation of church and state allowed religions to evolve and compete, and is one of the main reasons that America is so religious. If these clowns get their way, religion will be disgraced in America as well. They will do the secularists job for them. Joy is the reason, love is the method, but pain is the teacher.

    The question is, how much pain can you stand?

    One would think that the spectacle of Islamic Jihadism would be enough to remind us of what religion is when given free reign, but two hundred years of domesticated and tamed Christianity have encouraged the illusion that the creature has changed its nature. It hasn't. It's just biding its time...

  13. Re:OXYMORON ALERT by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would laugh if your comment was not so insulting.

    I'm a Republican and ever since I left college I've been listening to college lectures on tape, in order to expand my knowledge of history and philosophy. The idea that I must be stupid because I have an (R) after my name is almost as insulting when Pres.Carter said I must be "racist" because I attended a Tea Party Rally last April 15.

    Stop prejudging people as groups.

    We are not groups. We are individuals which means we ALL think differently, even if we do share the same label. Not all Republicans are uneducated brutes, or racists, just as not all Democrats have altars to Marx or Mao.

    \

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  14. Brother Glitch23 by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Brother Glitch23,

    Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died for my sins. We follow God by taking up our crosses and feeding the hungry, visiting the imprisoned, healing the sick and clothing the naked. We preach the good news and the acceptable year of the Lord.

    I am a Liberal, I am your Christian brother, and if you don't believe me, just go ask Pop.

    And as much as it pains me to point this out, you have some reading to do.

    There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion.

    I'm assuming you're referencing the Puritans, since Jamestown was a fairly commercial endeavor. Your problem is that those Puritans would not have recognized you as a fellow Christian, any more than you most likely recognize Catholics as fellow Christians. If you're a Southern Baptist, Assembly of God or any other Evangelical, you'd have been shunned as a heretic.

    BTW, those Puritans you're putting on the pedestal, you might want to read a little Hawthorne, or the history of King Philips' War. The Indians saved the lives of the Puritans that first winter. The children of the Pilgrims paid them back by slaughering the Indians' children and stealing their lands. Like I said, don't take my word for it. Go spend some time with Nathaniel Hawthorne.

    "There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs."

    Sigh. Start reading Jefferson. Read it long, read it hard, and read it in the knowledge that it was written by a man who spent his nights literally cutting and pasting the supernatural out of his copy of the Bible. Read it in the knowledge that the man who wrote this nation's beginning had a decades-long affair with a woman that he owned as a slave.

    If you think it's going to be diffiult to square Jefferson with your theology, tighten your seatbelt and hang on, because when you read about the unbridled debauchery that was Benjamin Franklin...

    When you can't take that any more, start in on the "Federalist Papers." They're dry, they're tedious, and they'll permanently put to bed any idea that this was meant to be a "Christian" nation.

    As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above.

    Sigh. That motto was put on US currency in 1956, during the same wave of panicked nationalist fervor that spawned Hoover and McCarthy. Are you sure the Church should be laying claim to that?

    But since we're talking about Christianity and Coins, let's go back to the book we really ought to be reading. When the Zealots asked Christ "Is it lawful to pay taxes unto Ceaser?" it wasn't a financial question. You didn't exactly file a W-2 with Rome. Taxation under Rome was a lot closer to outright mugging. Why do you think tax collectors like Zacchaeus were so hated?

    What the Zealots were really asking was "Don't you think it's time to throw off Roman bondage and establish Isreal as God's Holy Nation again?"

    Look at His answer. Give it to them. Look at His other answers. Sell all that you have, and give to the poor. If they take your shirt, give them your coat too. If they make you a slave, do more than they ask you too. Resist not evil men. Give to any who asks. Here, take this, care for this man and if you need any more, charge it to my account. I'll pay it. Put down that sword, I don't need you to fight for Me, my Kingdom is not on this world and if you're fighting over things that are here, you have missed the point. Yes, I'll die to save people who do not deserve it. I'll die to save the people who are actually killing me.

    My Kingdom. Is. Not. Here.

    Those men in Texas have forgotten this. They don't want to take up their cross. They want to lay down the law. They seek to further the Kingdom by political will, rather than by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked and visiting the imprisoned.

    And my real fear for those men is they'll be asked why they didn't one day...

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  15. Who do you think controls the fate of the Church? by jeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state

    Um, Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and Render unto God that which is God's? Remember Pontius Pilate's question? Are you a king? The response? My Kingdom is not of this world. As far as this world goes, our Lord Jesus Christ believed in the separation of church and state. He specifically chose not to join the Zealots who wanted to overthrow pagan Rome and found a new free Isreal loyal to God. You want to talk about evil Liberals suppressing religion, can you imagine living in a world where the cities you lived in were officially dedicated to a Pagan god?

    And Christ chose not to bother with it. He had larger concerns than temporary distractions like the rule of Rome.

    But let's suppose you got the Theocracy you want. Which Christian Church is to hold sway? Will you follow a President loyal to the Pope? No? Greek Orthodox? An Anglican, perhaps? No? Want a Good Ol' American denomination, do you? Episcopalian? Methodist? Seventh Day Adventist? Plain ol' Baptist? Church of Christ? Oh, you'll be happy so long as it's Evangelical? Really? Southern Baptist? Assembly of God? Vineyard Ministries? Got a favorite in there, do you?

    We can't even get the followers of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn and Robert Schuller to agree on a coherent plan of action. When you try to wed civil power with Christian religious authority, it results in endless fighting. You might want to ask the British about that.

    There's a reason why the first Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's why the Founding Fathers used weasel words like "Creator" and "Nature's God," because they specifically did not want to reference Jesus Christ the Messiah or Lord God Almighty Jehovah. By the way, more reading to do -- "Deism."

    If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home.

    Hi. Remember me? The Liberal? No one is looking to ban religion in this country. For goodness' sake, the Sheriff's office directs traffic at the churches on Sundays in my town. Our previous attorney general was the son of an Assemblies of God minister and a fervent supporter of that church. To imply that the Christian Church in America is under any kind of persecution is to dishonor the memory of all the Christians who actually were persecuted and actually did die for their Faith.

    But let's suppose it happened, let's suppose Obama really did turn out to be Lucifer's left hand, and the First Amendment got repealed next week. Let's suppose a profession of Christianity merited summary execution starting next Monday.

    Do you suppose it would endanger the Church at all? Or will you join me in believing that God Almighty alone decides the fate of the Body of Christ? By the way, that decree actually happened once. Rome decided to stamp out Christianity once and for all. All the Roman swords and lions did was fan the flame of the Word all the way across Europe.

    Do you know why? Because Men and Earthly politics do not decide the fate of the Church. God doesn't need the support of the Legislature, or the school board or the Media.

    Since this is Slashdot, after all, God ... doesn't need a starship.

    I have good news for you, Brother Glitch. God is still in His Heaven, and all the evil sandal-clad long-haired dope-smoking Liberals of the world do not pose a threat to His Church. He built that church on a rock, and the very gates of Hell will not stand against it, so I don't think Nancy Pelosi is much of a problem.

    You can relax. We're covered.

    Well, we're covered on that problem. As I continue to read the Gospels, we seem to have other issues. It seems that our Lord (Luke 4) has come to preach good news to the poor, t

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."