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?"
They have books in Texas?
“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”
Oh boy.
Will they also emphasize the decline and perversion of Christian values in Government? How about the fact that the inclusion of Christian values in government affairs necessarily renders them un-Christian? I'm not sure how "conservatives" ever became associated with Christian values.
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
Reminds me of the old (ooooooooooooooooolllllllllllddddddd) textbook my calculus teacher has that managed to sneak through Texas book approval. It had four graphs printed right next to each other, the first of which was a step function, the second a parabola, the third was 2 sqrt functions forming a right-facing parabola, and the last was a right facing absolute function. This was the first time the graphs had been printed in color, too, so the *ahem* naughty word really popped.
Take that, O reality with your liberal bias!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You could RTFA :) It contains several of the amendments that were passed.
To comment on a few:
Mr. Bradley ... won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians were interned in the United States as well as the Japanese during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Yes, obviously that means it can't have been an issue of race...
In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of the importance of personal responsibility for life choices in a section on teen suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.
The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything, Ms. Cargill said.
Wow - are they going to stop blaming images, films, porn, rock music and computer games for these things too?
From the NY Times:
"California is the largest textbook market, but besides being bankrupt, it tends to be so specific about what kinds of information its students should learn that few other states follow its lead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?scp=3&sq=texas%20education&st=cse
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!
Here's an excerpt from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/politics/11texas.html?src=me
There have also been efforts among conservatives on the board to tweak the history of the civil rights movement. One amendment states that the movement created “unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes” among minorities. Another proposed change removes any reference to race, sex or religion in talking about how different groups have contributed to the national identity.
The amendments are also intended to emphasize the unalloyed superiority of the “free-enterprise system” over others and the desirability of limited government.
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”
Throughout the standards, the conservatives have pushed to drop references to American “imperialism,” preferring to call it expansionism. “Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed, while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership, and the ideas in Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
Early in the hearing on Wednesday, Mr. McLeroy and other conservatives on the board made it clear they would offer still more planks to highlight what they see as the Christian roots of the Constitution and other founding documents.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
Screw the GOP and the DNC. How about if We the People reclaim our mantle of "government by the people?"
Currently hooked on AMP
Don't bother replying to that guy. All his posts have always looked like that. Real short, idiotic, and hostile.
80-90% of them quickly sink to -1 and all the rest get 5, which probably reflects a political polarization among moderators.
"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.
OK, now that my knee is done jerking and I've at least skimmed TFA, there are some interesting tidbits.
Dr. McLeroy pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent approach. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
This might not be such a bad thing if it leads students to learn more. For example, in going over materials regarding the Panthers, they might learn that group exercised 2nd ammendment rights. It was the fear of Blacks with guns that led to some of the first (the first?) gun control measures in California. The law was, IIRC, signed into law by... Ronald Reagan!
I'd love to be there when a student raises his hand in class to ask the teacher why a Republican would sign gun control legislation, or presents this fact in an oral report about the Panthers.
Oh, and I wasn't taught this in school. I knew nothing of it until I moved to the Bay Area and learned more about the Panthers simply because I heard they got started in this area. That caused me to become curious and read up on their history. School certainly didn't teach it.
Hearing the adults argue about all this will probably teach the kids in ways that neither side anticipated.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm an atheist, but he's right. The Constitution does not mention separation of Church and state -- it merely forbids the establishment of any religion. Or am I wrong here? What does it mean really to "separate Church and state?" The idea of a secular state is an excellent one, but I wish the Constitution were clearer on some of these points.
Currently hooked on AMP
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".
Well, then you can say to him that the Constitution says nothing about the right to own guns. He might be thinking of telling you about the Second Amendment says "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", but you could just respond that that is ambiguous, as it doesn't specify whether they mean "arms" as in weapons, or "arms" as in the upper extremities. Maybe Madison was just concerned about the government chopping them off, as he may have heard that they do in Muslim lands. Then perhaps that jagoff will resort to references of those coeval extra-constitutional writings, wherein the phrase "separation of church and state" can also be found.
Ah, the joys of willful ignorance.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
It's the conservative anti-intellectual thing, I think. In Texas any uneducated asshole can put in his two cents about educational standards, and he's given equal weight with trained, experienced teachers.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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!
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:
It is now:
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!
In the late 80s, the republican base was slipping. Bush I barely won against Dukakis. Keep in mind, Bush was at the center of political power his whole life, headed the CIA, and had just completed 8 years as Vice President. His campaign had to resort to a racist attack ad about Willie Horton.
In 1992, Bush lost to Clinton, and many believe it was because he refused to identify himself as a "born again" Christian. Most evangelicals had been uninvolved in politics, until they were discovered by the dying Republican movement. As long as you professed to be evangelical and pro-life, you'd have local preachers pushing their followers to vote for you. Bush II toed the line, and got elected twice for it. The only problem is now the evangelical movements want one of their own in the White House - Sarah Palin - and that's something the ruling business party cannot allow. They brought her in for the VP job, but she couldn't pull the moderate record of McCain. Palin could have been the sideshow, but the business party is greedy, not crazy, and they'll never let her within ten miles of the big red button.
The evangelicals are an enormous and active voting bloc. They do exactly as their pastor or preacher tells them, and nearly half of them are in church every single sunday. Now they are being used up by two seats of power: Republicans and their own church leaders. The Republicans get a voting bloc that will campaign against their own interests, and the church leaders get access to power and a fanatical flock that now worships money, and gives them a bunch of it.
Just try to imagine Christ at a Tea Party rally, protesting tax dollars spent on the ill and the needy, and then signing up to join the Army the next day. The evangelicals have no idea which way is north. They don't even have a coherent set of values left. They are just following orders.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177 is good for general quotes from the Founding Fathers regarding religion. I like:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - John Adams
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." - John Adams
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'" - Thomas Jefferson
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine
Hey here's something the "lazy democrats" tried to pass, but failed:
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.
Hey guys, relax! If this isn't the kind of change you were hoping for go make changes yourself! It's still a free country! Just some questions to ask yourself:
Why are you wanting people to kill themselves?
Why do you dislike these people so much?
Do you dislike them because they are promoting Christian values?
If you do, do you dislike that they believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so that who ever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life?
Do you dislike them because they try to live like Christ but recognize that when they fail, which they inevitably do, they go back to God and ask for forgiveness?
Do you dislike them because they believe in a God that you don't believe exists?
Or do you dislike them because simply because you do not like others who don't believe in what you believe?
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.
emphasis added
The Texas Freedom Network continues to live blog the Texas State Board of Education hearings where the collection of ignorant dolts on that board debate and amend the social studies standards. And it's getting downright surreal. They actually removed Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from the history standards. Seriously.
9:27 - The board is taking up remaining amendments on the high school world history course.
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.
9:40 - We're just picking ourselves up off the floor. The board's far-right faction has spent months now proclaiming the importance of emphasizing America's exceptionalism in social studies classrooms. But today they voted to remove one of the greatest of America's Founders, Thomas Jefferson, from a standard about the influence of great political philosophers on political revolutions from 1750 to today.
9:45 - Here's the amendment Dunbar changed: "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." Here's Dunbar's replacement standard, which passed: "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." Not only does Dunbar's amendment completely change the thrust of the standard. It also appalling drops one of the most influential political philosophers in American history -- Thomas Jefferson.
9:51 - Dunbar's amendment striking Jefferson passed with the votes of the board's far-right members and board member Geraldine "Tincy" Miller of Dallas.
The standard was about the Enlightenment and political revolutions that led to modern liberal democracy. So they removed the Enlightenment references and Thomas Jefferson, who played a key role in the two most prominent revolutions in the history of the Western world, and replaced them with Thomas Aquinas, who lived 500 years before the Enlightenment, and John Calvin, who lived 200 years before the Enlightenment and was a major figure in an entirely different period of history, the Reformation, which preceded the Enlightenment.
Yes, you should, in fact, be mouthing the words "what the fuck" right about now.
And the stupidity continues:
11:21 - Board member Barbara Cargill wants to insert a discussion of the right to bear arms in a standard that focuses on First Amendment rights and the expression of various points of view. This is absurd. If they want students to study the right to bear arms, at least try to find an appropriate place in the standards for it. This is yet another example of politicians destroying the coherence of a curriculum document for no reason other than promoting ideological pet causes. Republican board member Bob Craig of Lubbock is suggesting a better place for such a standard. But the amendment passes anyway. The board's far-right faction is simply impervious to logic.
11:30 - Board member Pat Hardy notes that elsewhere the standards already require students to study each of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. No one seems to care.
11:33 - Bob Craig tries, once again, to talk some sense into these
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.
LOL. Nice to see someone point this out for a change. And for those non-residents reading along at home, most Hollywood execs (from agents to production houses to studio heads) have political philosophies more in line with rural Kansas or Texas than those associated with our liberal enclaves. You heard it right, folks. Most of "Hollywood" is conservative. Shouldn't be a surprise, given the amount of money at stake in a given deal or project. The paeons working in the industry, on the other hand, well, creative types invariably and almost by definition espouse (often quite vocally) philosophies different from the mainstream.
I'd even go farther. There's parts of Kansas, Texas and other states in the deep South are more hip, liberal and/or progressive than what's here in California. I'm fortunate to live in a bohemian-ish enclave, but it's surrounded by miles of working-class, blue-collar neighbourhoods with American flags flying in their front yards, and Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars and trucks. In the wealthier communities, the Bush/Cheney stickers are on SUVs.
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...
Obligatory Family Guy clip.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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
Assuming that a group that you disagree with are all stupid is a likely indicator that an individual is likely an idiot.
A Republican that thinks that all Democrats are stoned out hippies that can't hold a rational thought is a moron. A Democrat who thinks that all Republicans are selfish ultra-capitalist fundamentalists is a moron. For ALL of you: Remember, there are people in the OPPOSING PARTY that are significantly SMARTER than you... REGARDLESS of which party you're in.
Any idiot that paints all conservatives or all liberals as idiots should rightfully be considered an idiot.
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."
... I vote Republican because I don't want a 50% overall tax rate.
a) If you voted for Democrat(s), you would not be supporting a 50% overall tax rate. b) While Democrats tend to vote for more government services i.e. expenditures, often without raising tax revenues to pay for it, Republicans tend to vote for eliminating tax revenues, often without eliminating government services that they finance. Neither situation is in the best interest of the citizens of the USA as they increase future taxes more than otherwise be prudent. That's one reason I consistently vote for people that are not endorsed bay any political party for the Federal or State office I'm casting my vote for. Last presidential election I voted for Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, NJ. I'm willing to vote for a Democrat or Republican that supports the public funding of federal election campaigns as advocated by fixcongressfirst.org. But only for one term.
Republicans believe:
That there were WMD, but Saddam moved them to Syria.
That their weren't WMD, but we had good evidence he did.
That even if we didn't have evidence, Saddam said he did, and wouldn't let in inspectors.
That we've put on more debt in 1 year under Obama than 8 years with bush.
That the best thing to do in a recession is to balance the budget.
That social security is in crisis.
That Barney Frank forcing banks to loan to black people is what caused the crash of 2008.
That tax increases on the ultra rich are class warfare, but tax increases on everyone else are fair.
That gay marriage threatens marriage.
That the US has the best health care in the world.
That the most conservative, free-market based healthcare overhaul you could imagine coming from a Democrat is a dangerous socialist experiment.
That contrary to the Democratic plan, the best way to fix health care is a combination of tort reform and letting insurance comapanies pick their favorite state to regulate them.
That invading Iraq wasn't a war crime.
That torturing people isn't a war crime.
That we only tortured terrorists.
That waterboarding isn't torture.
That holding people without trial forever is ok.
That an illegal, dictatorial system of counter terrorism is better than a legal one.
That Bill Clinton was one of the most corrupt presidents.
That Sarah Palin might make a good president.
That Rush Limbaugh isn't a toxic zit on the ass of humanity.
You probably don't believe *all* of these things, but any one of them is obviously false or flatly ludicrous, and if you don't believe any of them, why would you be a Republican?
Play Command HQ online
I'm very careful about the labels I attach to myself. I wouldn't join a group which has a significant racist, homophobic or anti-intellectual component to it's ideological base.
You may well not be racist. You may well not be a homophobe. You might well value intellectual pursuits. You have joined a political party which on the whole is functionally racist, ideologically homophobic and has numerous policies which are anti-intellectual to the core. People have to make snap judgements to get by most of the time. It is reasonable to make snap judgements about people when one does not have the time nor the duty to make a more in depth investigation of a person. If you don't like being considered a racist, a homophobe or an anti-intellectual when people are in a position that requires making snap judgements or inferences the solution is simple. Leave the Republican Party.
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."