Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Textbook Curriculum Passes Final Vote In Texas
suraj.sun sends in a followup to a story we've been following about the Texas Board of Education's efforts to put a more political spin on some of their state's textbooks. From the Dallas Morning News:
"In a landmark move that will shape the future education of millions of Texas schoolchildren, the State Board of Education on Friday approved new curriculum standards for US history and other social studies courses that reflect a more conservative tone than in the past. Split along party lines, the board delivered a pair of 9-5 votes to adopt the new standards, which will dictate what is taught in all Texas schools and provide the basis for future textbooks and student achievement tests over the next decade. Texas standards often wind up being taught in other states because national publishers typically tailor their materials to Texas, one of the biggest textbook purchasers in the country. Approval came after the GOP-dominated board approved a new curriculum standard that would encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation — a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer."
We either need the DOE to take control of this kind of thing, or we need the other states to be willing to go through this process for themselves.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Welcome to the new American Taliban.
Finally they are no longer pretending to be like the rest of us.
Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past, control the future.
You can't handle the truth.
encourage high school students to question the legal doctrine of church-state separation -- a sore point for social conservative groups who disagree with court decisions that have affirmed the doctrine, including the ban on school-sponsored prayer.
While there are numerous problems with the curriculum, isn't teaching students to be skeptical of government a good thing? If you blindly follow what the government says, democracy in a free society falls apart.
A free thinking individual should be skeptical of all things the government has done, question the motives for various laws and if they believe they are unjust, vote against them or otherwise try to get them repealed.
There are some good examples in this particular case. It just comes down to interpretation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is the actual text, it says nowhere about "separation of church and state" it comes down to interpretation if school prayer is a violation of establishing a national religion.
Really, out of all the things wrong in the Texas curriculum why does TFS point out something that could very well be a benefit. Teaching students to question government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that there is "separation of church and state" all that the constitution says it that congress can't pass any laws forbidding you from practicing your religion and from establishing a national religion. Such claims are, as rightfully stated, matters of interpretation.
That isn't to say that I don't agree with the interpretation, but it is just that: an interpretation.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I've wondered about this for a while now - couldn't universities ban together and commit some resources (a small contribution from a large number of schools) to create a K-12 series of texts on major subjects, that is designed by the best available experts and freely available for all districts to use? Creative Commons licensing (oddly enough, CC has a link right now to Virginia's Department of Education and some work they are doing) and (insofar as is humanly possible) a focus on just the facts of history and their documentable consequences. To enforce some objective standard of what constitutes a fact, require documented citations to primary historical sources for all parts of the book asserting facts - preferably citations with links to the source material. The final form of the textbook delivered to students wouldn't necessarily include those references, but they would be present online and mandatory for anything that reached the "final" version. Let the broader college professor community decide on the acceptability of/validity of any particular cited source.
Not only would this provide a mechanism for creation and distribution of textbooks that wouldn't be easily influenced by political agendas (tenured professors are about as pressure-proof as we're likely to get and still have sufficient domain knowledge to do useful work) but it would make good quality teaching materials universally and cheaply available. If school districts didn't have to pony up so much money for textbooks, what else could they do with the money?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"What we have is the history profession, the experts, seem to have a left-wing tilt, so what we were doing is trying to restore some balance to the standards," board member Don McLeroy said in March.
In other words: "Despite being a two-bit politician on a school board, I'm going to ignore what even I call the experts' views and bend curriculum to support my political whims because I am a fucking retard."
They don't sound so "conservative" to me. Lies are conservative?
Environmentalism=conservation, "conservatives"=anti-environmentalism.
Constitution: separation of church and state (what could be more conservative than the basis of all US law?). "Conservatives": church in state=sponsored schools.
The list goes on. The only thing they want to conserve is the rich's wealth. "Antiprogress" is a better label than "conservative".
These "conservatives" are anti-American.
Free Martian Whores!
social conservatism is all about a simplistic model of human behavior: teenagers, just don't have sex, homosexuals, just stop being homosexual, just say no to drugs, etc.
ironically, social conservatives always wind up breaking their own principles. just examine the folly of anti-homosexual activists found in homosexual situations form throughout history, especially recent, for examples. and you can bet the daughters of politicians who rail against abortion are secretly flown to canada when a "problem" happens
social conservatism is always "do as i say, not as i do". and there isn't really any malice in their simple-mindedness. most of them sincerely believe their own dunderheaded takes on human nature, and then wind up paying the price for their simpleminded edicts on human behavior
human nature is complex, and when forced into simplistic models, you just wind up causing more suffering than you are attempting to stop. this isn't an attempt to excuse lack of responsibility or criminal activity, its a simple obvious statement that the real world is more complex than very simpleminded teachings
social conservatives are not evil, they're just stupid
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Regardless of what decisions they make, does it bother anyone else that a board or 15 people apparently decides the curriculum for the whole country? Seems like that would be the first thing to fix.
When Teddy Roosevelt and the rest of the sane people left the Republican party in 1912.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Sorry, but prayer led by state paid employees in a state-funded institution i.e. public school is obviously establishment of a state religion.
This is not "Conservative"! Using "Conservative" to describe this is like using "Hacker" to describe script kiddies, or "Canadian Goose" to instead of "Canada Goose". It's popular, but it's still wrong!
Conservative means a limited government with limited power to interfere in the lives of individual citizens; That is, the government has no jurisdiction over (and therefore cannot interfere in) gay marriage, abortion, individual educational materials, etc. These "Conservatives" want a large oppressive government to force their social and religious agendas on the citizenry; That is not conservative! It's the opposite! Stop calling it that!
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Disallowing prayer in schools *IS* "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". REQUIRING prayer, or even LEADING prayer constitutes an "establishment of religion". Both are similarly odious, and both must be denied / stopped / prevented under the law.
Simply put, if the kids want to pray, let them pray, and to whomever and about whatever they please. However, the teachers, administrators, counselors, etc, should not be leading said prayer, nor should the school policies require it in any way, shape, or form.
Besides, to whom, for whom, or for what reason are the kids going to be required to pray / led to pray? That's where this gets sticky. Muslims and Jews aren't going to pray to Jesus. Atheists aren't going to pray to anyone. Buddhists and Hindus are going to be looking at each other going "wtf?".
That's why the whole notion of challenging the foundational concept of the separation of church and state is, to put it very mildly, so wrong.
We've been going at this for over two centuries, and we're still debating this? It's settled. It's done. It is just and correct. Leave it the hell alone. (I know I am mostly preaching to the choir here; it is just a mini-rant directed at the "conservatives" in Texas rehashing this stupidity).
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
It might interest you to know that from a standpoint of pretty much every other democratic country in the world, the USA's main parties are either right wing or extreme right wing. Progressives are merely moderate right wing.
USA fear of anything "social" causes few americans to understand there is a very wide gap between fascism/communism and what americans consider normal.
Most of the world has watched with puzzlement as many american's protested (and continue to protest) against a medical healthcare system even less social than what most democratic countries have been running succesfully for decades.
In my own experience, many Americans seem to blackout when the word "social" is mentioned, immediately jumping to the conclusion that it means "oppressive communist dictatorship" instead of merely "less anti-social". When the USA and it's citizens do so many things right and have so much to offer the rest of the world, I just find it sad to know most Americans simply don't care about anybody but themselves.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
There is a huge difference in the state of Texas spending their own money to educate their children with a curriculum they choose and the United States government taxing every tax paying American to educate all children with a one sided, politically correct/motivated curriculum.
How is this different from the state of Texas taxing every tax paying Texan to educate all children with a one sided, politically (and factually) incorrect/motivated curriculum and the United States spending their (collective) money to educate their children with a curriculum they (collectively) choose?
Honestly, apart from the fact you (presumably) like the choices the Texas School Board is making, I can't see the difference.
I've yet to see an unbiased point-by-point comparison between the new and old standards. Everyone reporting on the issue seems to have an axe to grind, and most often with the aim of inflaming as many of those who agree with their view as possible. Most of what we've seen reported hasn't even been actual text from the books - but rather paraphrased 'goals' written by those with an agenda, or out-of-context quotes.
Until we see that sort of comparison, I would suggest that most of the hyperbole and histrionics are premature.
The students who actually study the issues will see the differences of opinion and fact, and draw their own conclusions.Those who just accept the printed information usually do not care one way or the other.
As the students raise through the educational system, they will be exposed to other viewpoints, and can decide for themselves.
There is an assumption in these posts that all students in Texas are no more than blank screens waiting for the bigots of this view or that to propagandize them into mindless conformity. When the hell have teens been in conformity to anything adults value?
I believe that the Texas School Board is doing nothing but posturing for future political purposes.
Progress toward what though?
All I've seen from self defined progressives is a progressive trend to authoritarianism. The same is true for religious conservatives.
It is a shame that people don't see that both want what they feel is best for you. And it's a damned shame that neither want to give you a choice in the matter.
When the progression is toward authority. It isn't surprising when people treat it as a dirty word.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
It is entirely up to interpretation if allowing prayer in schools constitutes an "establishment of religion" or whether it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Except no prevents anyone from praying in school. What is prevented is leading a prayer in school. Think about out it? Why would any organization whose express purpose is irrelevant to religion, engage in religion? What prayer would be led? I bet that if someone stood up in front of those that advocate for government sponsored prayer and started "Oh Dark Lord ..." or even "Lord Alllah..." they'd be outraged. The fact is that institutionalized prayer is coercive. Everyone wants to fit in and not feel like a freak, especially children.
Not only is institutionalized prayer and endorsement of a specific religion, its an endorsement of religion itself. That's not the government's role, and I find it insulting. You might find this view "extreme," but keep in mind, that not only was having an opening prayer voted down during the constitutional convention, but the presidential oath of office pointedly does not say "so help me god" in it.
I suggest you look up Billy Graham and the growth of the religious right in the mid 50s and how it dovetailed into the anticommunist fanatism of the day.
You sort of missed the point and got the problem without realizing it altogether.
The US is right learning compared to the rest of the civilized world- however, when you look at the strengths of the US, you will find that position is mostly why we have so much to offer the rest of the world. Take Europe for instance, the more left they run, the less productive the seem to be. By productive, I mean in areas like innovation and such. They socialized medical care and have largely been playing catchup in innovation and technology ever since. Now don't get me wrong, they still innovate, they still come up with great accomplishments, but it's not as much as in more free areas where profit is a stronger motivator.
Then you have issues like defense. If the US hadn't paid for most of Europe's defense in the last century or so, they wouldn't have had the social programs they see today. In the last election in the UK, the expected new prime ministers were asked questions about relations with the US and something that illustrates this point is a response (I forget which one said it) that boils down to "close ties with the US allows the UK to overextend it's weight around the world which allows a great benefit to the UK". But more importantly, without the US's military investment in Europe, you would have large armies instead of large social programs and history has showed us more then once what happens when Europe has large armies controlled by separate entities sitting around.
Most Americans are raise with the concept that you take care of yourself and your family. This is one reason why Gangs are such problems, they recruit in the style of extending the family (thereby extending the strength and stability of the family) which attracts very loyal people bordering on zealotry. The concept of social dependency is taboo when people have grown up always having to provide for themselves and make things happen on their own. This is changing as schools have made it more common to expect dependency on others with school lunch programs and so on.
There is also a sort of separation seen by some/most of the American people where they see the community as there people they know and live with, not the governments imposing restrictions on them. Combine this with traditional christian values of taking care of the people around you in need, and it seems to be sort of an insult to take from one to give to another when people are supposed to pull together and do it themselves. The Amish communities in America get out of paying social security taxes and unemployment/workers compensation taxes because of this religious interpretation. they also will never collect from any of those sources as they see relying on insurance as a failing of the church and community. I'm not even sure the Amish could live and practice in other countries because of that core belief.
The "Americans protested (and continue to protest) against a medical health care system", if I may add some insight to why they protest it, is multi based. Part of it is the providing for yourself, even if that means purchasing insurance from some company, part of it is the loss of freedoms where healthy individuals in their prime don't really need more then catastrophic coverage and now they will be forced to purchase a more comprehensive package, and then there are some who simply can't stand the retarded closed system of government that rammed the health care bill through without the slightest bit of what most would consider to be due diligence.
I'm sure many foreigners might jump on in disagreement i
and i would respond by saying that a society lorded over by social conservatives is better than a society without any standards
in other words, i understand your point, but you don't understand mine
yes, you need standards. but what i am asking for are standards that take in actual truth of human nature. for example: "teenagers: use protection when you have sex." that's a standard, and it recognizes teenagers will have sex no matter what you do. and when they do have sex, they won't get stds and get pregnant
but a social conservative will say: "teenagers: just don't have sex." but then they do anyway, that's what teenagers do. and because you haven't prepared for it, you get teenagers with clamydia and babies. in fact, in traditionally social conservative areas of the united states, teenage birthrates are higher than more liberal areas. what does that tell you? just look at sarah palin's daughter: my point is right up there for all to see about the failure of social conservative teachings: it doesn't stop teenagers from having sex. the desire for teenagers to explore their budding sexuality is a hardwired biological desire that no morality will ever overcome, or ever should try to overcome. if sarah palin had liberal leanings, she would have given her daughter a condom, and there would be no teenage mother up on stage with sarah palin screaming as a symbol for anyone with a true moral compass: "HYPOCRISY"
the point is NOT to have no standards. lack of responsibility, accountability, and outright evil trangressive criminality are horrible, and yes, are worse than social conservativism, i agree with that. a society with horrible crude abusive social conservative standards IS better than no standards at all
what i am asking is not to excuse the inexcusable, to have no standards, what i am asking is to have the RIGHT standards, which are often more complex, involve recognizing certain aspects of human nature you don't want to admit, and incorporate those realizations into your principles
for example: it is not lack of responsibility, lack of accountability, or criminal transgressive behavior when two men or two women have sex. so why prosecute people who do so? why tell teenagers sex is bad? homosexuality or teenagers having sex IS NOT WRONG. but social conservatism tells us they ARE bad. that is homosexuality is criminal. that teenagers having sex is irresponsible. but the genuine truth is that homosexuality is COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK and that teenagers having sex IS COMPLETELY NORMAL AND OK
you look at me and see someone who is trying to destroy morality. no: i am making morality BETTER. we NEED morality. what we don't need is simpleminded social conservative morality, we NEED BETTER MORE INTELLIGENT MORALITY
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Which explains why Christian Conservatives would prefer to diminish the role of Thomas Jefferson as he seems to support this so called "soft anarchy".
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810
What the fuck have you been smoking? If you are in France you get 30 days of holiday per year, free healthcare, a longer life-expectancy, and a better quality of living. You are also less likely to be shot, less likely to have to shoot someone, and more likely to drive a much better car to a much better job.
But please - keep jerking yourself off over your flag. It'll definitely work.
Praying in school and teachers leading prayers and the pledge of allegiance was standard from the days of the founders until unelected judges disagreed with them ideologically and changed them
As the pledge of allegiance wasn't written until over 100 years after the formation of the union I call bullshit.
Question the separation of church and state?
If you want the church in your state, you deserve the state in your church.
You might want to rethink your cunning plan, cowboy.
--
BMO
It doesn't matter what the Tea party "stands for" if you consistently pick as your public face, the dumbest (and otherwise worst) people this decade has seen. Until that changes, don't be surprised if no one takes your platform seriously. As laudable as it may be in the abstract - it is obvious what your leaders stand for and no one doubts that in the end, abstract manifestos will be prostituted to the whims of those leaders.
Where's any actual data that supports your assertion that the USA innovates more because it's more right-leaning?
In both of these cases, neither the prayer or the entire service is required. In addition, the people involved are adults, and thus far more able to say "no".
When school prayer was common, teachers and administrators made it absolutely clear to the students that prayer was required. And since the students are kids, they're not likely to say "no" when pressed - if the students even have the right to say "no". After all, the school is acting in loco parentis.
Think of it this way: Would you be comfortable if teachers told your kids they had to pray to Allah? If you are not happy with that plan, then you should not be happy with forcing others to pray to your god.
If I recall correctly, the pre-Cold War version is:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I'm still not a fan of making children repeat loyalty oaths as a kind of mantra to begin every (school) day, no matter what the words are.
Property is theft.
The real wisdom they had was in recognizing that if you have two sides debating over something that are unwilling to give in on an issue, then you need to work out some sort of compromise between the two.
Some of those compromises didn't look so wise in the late 1860's. The trouble with compromises is that sometimes the stress of maintaining them is too great for civil society, and maintaining them is more unworkable than finding decisively in one side's favor.
I've been playing out what-if scenarios in my head and I don't think the Civil War could have been avoided. I'm guessing the choices were either to come up with something to maintain the status quo on slavery or have the slave states walk out and form their own union. Under the latter option, any attempts at freeing slaves from border states would probably be interpreted as international incidents. And as the two unions expanded westward they would be competing for new territory (essentially the same as actually happened).
Basically, I think that once American slavery had become an entrenched practice, it was guaranteed to end in blows.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
There is no such thing as free healthcare!
There is no such thing as "free" anything. Everything has a price. If you are to diminish "free" so that no one anywhere paid anything for it, then "free" has no meaning at all. Since there's no point in having a word with no meaning, I have to believe you to be incorrect. It is "free" in the sense that you don't pay for it when you get it.
in France they pay for it as well as for other social services through taxes.
I pay more in the US to cover a few people as they pay in France to cover everyone. It may not be your "free" but it is cheaper and with better cover than the US. By far.
Learn to love Alaska