Slashdot Mirror
Gilbert, AZ Censors Biology Books the Old-Fashioned Way
nbauman writes The Gilbert, AZ school board has voted to tear out a page from Campbell's Biology (a standard highly-recommended textbook that many doctors and scientists fondly remember), because it discusses contraception without also discussing adoption. Julie Smith, a member of the Gilbert Public Schools governing board, said that she was a Catholic and "we do not contracept." Smith convinced the board that Campbell's violates Arizona law to teach "preference, encouragement and support to childbirth and adoption" over abortion. The Arizona Education Department decided that the pages didn't violate Arizona law, but nevermind. Rachel Maddow generously risked hassles for copyright violation and posted the missing pages as a service to Arizona honors biology students.
It appears the school board didn't care about what was on the other side of the same page? Most textbooks I have seen are printed on both sides, so they just threw out two pages of of the book. I have used Campbell in the past (though not the current edition) and I suspect by the time the book reached the second side of that page they were no longer talking about contraception or abortion.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I can see a small crossover in biology and contraception, since contraceptives do interact with biology. Not so much for the condom, but very much so for the pill ("how does it work?") and then getting into male contraception, and also sterilization (tube tying in both genders) I can see where that has a biology application.
But adoption, how the heck does that belong in a biology textbook???
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
Her agenda is to make everyone Catholic.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
om the original article:
“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
“I’m American; we do not censor education,” vomitology said. “It is a grave sin.” By removing those pages in the curriculum, he added, “you have violated children's educational rights.”
FTFY
~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
Meanwhile, the Cathloic school I attended was more than happy to explain all forms of contraception, and making mention that there's a risk that it won't always work. The Catholic school also noted a form of contraception based around when the female partner has the period, a form of contraception fully sanctioned by the Catholic church.
Well there isn't much actual discussion of the science behind it - note how it appears before fertilisation has been discussed. On the other hand, it does mention the "rhythm method", which is both Catholic-friendly and a means of birth control. but adoption certainly isn't a means of birth control and wouldn't make sense.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
But if it was about questioning global warming info being removed there would be crickets.
Well yeah, because the only place such discussion would likely be would be in a science book, and what's in a science book should be supported by evidence. The kind of "questioning global warming" that people like you mean is not supported by evidence, it's distorting evidence, and does not belong in a science book.
As Colbert put best, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". It comes from being willing to actually ask questions and observe the world to find our answers, rather than an unwavering loyalty to an ideology. In this case these fucknuts are taking their religious beliefs, based on nothing, and prioritizing them over actual science. That's not political in any way, that's just fucking idiots. Unfortunately for those who are politically conservative but aren't insane the "conservative" party has spent 20 years courting the religious morons in every possible way and happily set themselves up for this kind of shit.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
In the war between our tribe and our enemy there can be no neutral ground. Any claim that isn't part of our tribe's identity and thus a pure, sweet truth, must be part of our enemy's and thus a vile, contemptuous lie. There can be no compromise with such Pure Evil. There can be no giving up any part of our cause, no show of weakness by ever admitting we were wrong. No matter what the cost to actual human beings, we will get our way.
But hey, at least people can change their ideological tribe, so it's a step up from ethnic ones!
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Well it's "News for Nerds, stuff that matters".
Let me elaborate.
The US is still, regardless of an individuals feelings towards it as a nation, the most influential nation with respect to sciences, technology and geo politics.
People like me from Europe, but also plenty of your fellow countrypeople from other states, are somewhat uneasy towards large areas of the US that are dominated by, to us, strange religious tendencies. At times it can feel like parts of the US aren't all that different to the Taliban in their general attitude, albeit the details differ vastly of course.
Now when things like this redaction of text books occurs, it lights up like a warning light that the, oh let's call them Christiban just for the fun of it, might be making inroads again.
And the US's position towards science, technology and teaching of science is of utmost importance for the rest of the world due to the US's massive influence in these fields. Noone can ignore it.
In closing I'd also like to notice that anyone scared by the actual Taliban, that group of not so terribly well funded Reactionaries in a overall not so terribly important part of the world, should realize that they are a trivial non-issue that a fully Talibanized ("Christibanized") US would pose.
Fantastically funded, large armed forces, nuclear weapons, a megapower... if that became in it's total a state dominated by relgious fundamentalists like that chick from that school board... that's a thought to shiver in fear of.
And this (extremely insightful) explanation is why so many United Statsians are so terrified of our own country. We are seemingly just a few votes away from a tyranny of the vocal religious minority. Give a fundamentalist a few thousand nuclear missiles and the most expensive army the world has ever known, and brown people around the world start to get nervous. But we have to do it, because terrorists, or freedom, or something!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
The parent did not use capitalization correctly. Yes, you consider yourself conservative, but allowing people to do drugs is not a Conservative (TM) position, it is a Liberal (TM) position. In fact, it is the intersection of liberal and conservative called libertarian. But, hey, those are just labels used to demonize and divide.
By the way, your argument falls apart in many ways, but mostly when kids are involved. Let's say mommy and daddy sit at home shooting up heroine (you shoot heroine, not LSD) and don't take care of their kids. Consequences, right? We put mommy and daddy in jail for child neglect and abuse. Great, now what do we do with the kids? Is it right to give them to some religious charity that will just indoctrinate them? Maybe there isn't a secular charity around to help. So, do we just tell the kids: "Oh well, mommy and daddy had to face consequences. You're on your own. Good luck." Or do we do something for them? If we do something for them with public money, that gives us control over what people put in their bodies, no? And, we have to do something for them because decades of history now show that you just perpetuate the problem by punishing the kids through punishing the parents.
Or, do we treat it like a public health issue, and get mommy and daddy treatment instead of taking them away from their kids? In which case, who pays for the treatment? We could put them in NarcAnon, but that doesn't really work and its a cult anyway. Again there might be some religious charities that will indoctrinate them. There might be some public charities. But that's really the problem with charities, they're unreliable, some are cults, and some indoctrinate into religions. So, we pay for it. Which, again, gives us some control over what goes in people's bodies, no? And, we end up doing that through taxation and regulation on what is available instead of an outright ban which hasn't worked at all.
We could be like Portugal and completely legalize everything. But, Portugal poured all of their former drug law enforcement dollars into public health treatment. There's no way in hell we would ever pour anywhere near 10% of what we currently put into drug law enforcement into public health treatment because we are a very punitive society (as evidence by your execution remark). So, we have to make a choice. And that choice is to not be a libertarian "paradise" that lets people put whatever in their bodies whenever for whatever reason.