PDA

View Full Version : Education Textbooks, Texas, and the Founding Fathers' Christianity (?)


Jenson71
02-15-2010, 11:41 PM
How Christian Were the Founders?

By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: February 11, 2010

LAST MONTH, A WEEK before the Senate seat of the liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy fell into Republican hands, his legacy suffered another blow that was perhaps just as damaging, if less noticed. It happened during what has become an annual spectacle in the culture wars.

Over two days, more than a hundred people — Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors; people outfitted in everything from business suits to military fatigues to turbans to baseball caps — streamed through the halls of the William B. Travis Building in Austin, Tex., waiting for a chance to stand before the semicircle of 15 high-backed chairs whose occupants made up the Texas State Board of Education. Each petitioner had three minutes to say his or her piece.

“Please keep César Chávez” was the message of an elderly Hispanic man with a floppy gray mustache.

“Sikhism is the fifth-largest religion in the world and should be included in the curriculum,” a woman declared.

Following the appeals from the public, the members of what is the most influential state board of education in the country, and one of the most politically conservative, submitted their own proposed changes to the new social-studies curriculum guidelines, whose adoption was the subject of all the attention — guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years. Gail Lowe — who publishes a twice-a-week newspaper when she is not grappling with divisive education issues — is the official chairwoman, but the meeting was dominated by another member. Don McLeroy, a small, vigorous man with a shiny pate and bristling mustache, proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming.

McLeroy moved that Margaret Sanger, the birth-control pioneer, be included because she “and her followers promoted eugenics,” that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan’s “leadership in restoring national confidence” following Jimmy Carter’s presidency and that students be instructed to “describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.” The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, “Guys, you’re rewriting history now!” Nevertheless, most of McLeroy’s proposed amendments passed by a show of hands.

Finally, the board considered an amendment to require students to evaluate the contributions of significant Americans. The names proposed included Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster except Kennedy, who was voted down.

This is how history is made — or rather, how the hue and cry of the present and near past gets lodged into the long-term cultural memory or else is allowed to quietly fade into an inaudible whisper. Public education has always been a battleground between cultural forces; one reason that Texas’ school-board members find themselves at the very center of the battlefield is, not surprisingly, money. The state’s $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually — which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State. 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. Texas, on the other hand, was one of the first states to adopt statewide curriculum guidelines, back in 1998, and the guidelines it came up with (which are referred to as TEKS — pronounced “teaks” — for Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills) were clear, broad and inclusive enough that many other states used them as a model in devising their own. And while technology is changing things, textbooks — printed or online —are still the backbone of education.

The cultural roots of the Texas showdown may be said to date to the late 1980s, when, in the wake of his failed presidential effort, the Rev. Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition partly on the logic that conservative Christians should focus their energies at the grass-roots level. One strategy was to put candidates forward for state and local school-board elections — Robertson’s protégé, Ralph Reed, once said, “I would rather have a thousand school-board members than one president and no school-board members” — and Texas was a beachhead. Since the election of two Christian conservatives in 2006, there are now seven on the Texas state board who are quite open about the fact that they vote in concert to advance a Christian agenda. “They do vote as a bloc,” Pat Hardy, a board member who considers herself a conservative Republican but who stands apart from the Christian faction, told me. “They work consciously to pull one more vote in with them on an issue so they’ll have a majority.”

This year’s social-studies review has drawn the most attention for the battles over what names should be included in the roll call of history. But while ignoring Kennedy and upgrading Gingrich are significant moves, something more fundamental is on the agenda. The one thing that underlies the entire program of the nation’s Christian conservative activists is, naturally, religion. But it isn’t merely the case that their Christian orientation shapes their opinions on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. This belief provides what they consider not only a theological but also, ultimately, a judicial grounding to their positions on social questions. When they proclaim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” they are not referring to the percentage of the population that ticks a certain box in a survey or census but to the country’s roots and the intent of the founders.

The Christian “truth” about America’s founding has long been taught in Christian schools, but not beyond. Recently, however — perhaps out of ire at what they see as an aggressive, secular, liberal agenda in Washington and perhaps also because they sense an opening in the battle, a sudden weakness in the lines of the secularists — some activists decided that the time was right to try to reshape the history that children in public schools study. Succeeding at this would help them toward their ultimate goal of reshaping American society. As Cynthia Dunbar, another Christian activist on the Texas board, put it, “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.”

Imet Don McLeroy last November in a dental office — that is to say, his dental office — in a professional complex in the Brazos Valley city of Bryan, not far from the sprawling campus of Texas A&M University. The buzz of his hygienist at work sounded through the thin wall separating his office from the rest of the suite. McLeroy makes no bones about the fact that his professional qualifications have nothing to do with education. “I’m a dentist, not a historian,” he said. “But I’m fascinated by history, so I’ve read a lot.”

Indeed, dentistry is only a job for McLeroy; his real passions are his faith and the state board of education. He has been a member of the board since 1999 and served as its chairman from 2007 until he was demoted from that role by the State Senate last May because of concerns over his religious views. Until now those views have stood McLeroy in good stead with the constituents of his district, which meanders from Houston to Dallas and beyond, but he is currently in a heated re-election battle in the Republican primary, which takes place March 2.

McLeroy is a robust, cheerful and inexorable man, whose personality is perhaps typified by the framed letter T on the wall of his office, which he earned as a “yell leader” (Texas A&M nomenclature for cheerleader) in his undergraduate days in the late 1960s. “I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist,” he announced almost as soon as we sat down. He also identifies himself as a young-earth creationist who believes that the earth was created in six days, as the book of Genesis has it, less than 10,000 years ago. He went on to explain how his Christian perspective both governs his work on the state board and guides him in the current effort to adjust American-history textbooks to highlight the role of Christianity. “Textbooks are mostly the product of the liberal establishment, and they’re written with the idea that our religion and our liberty are in conflict,” he said. “But Christianity has had a deep impact on our system. The men who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew the Bible. Our idea of individual rights comes from the Bible. The Western development of the free-market system owes a lot to biblical principles.”

For McLeroy, separation of church and state is a myth perpetrated by secular liberals. “There are two basic facts about man,” he said. “He was created in the image of God, and he is fallen. You can’t appreciate the founding of our country without realizing that the founders understood that. For our kids to not know our history, that could kill a society. That’s why to me this is a huge thing.”

“This” — the Texas board’s moves to bring Jesus into American history — has drawn anger in places far removed from the board members’ constituencies. (Samples of recent blog headlines on the topic: “Don McLeroy Wants Your Children to Be Stupid” and “Can We Please Mess With Texas?”) The issue of Texas’ influence is a touchy one in education circles. With some parents and educators elsewhere leery of a right-wing fifth column invading their schools, people in the multibillion textbook industry try to play down the state’s sway. “It’s not a given that Texas’ curriculum translates into other states,” says Jay Diskey, executive director of the school division for the Association of American Publishers, which represents most of the major companies. But Tom Barber, who worked as the head of social studies at the three biggest textbook publishers before running his own editorial company, says, “Texas was and still is the most important and most influential state in the country.” And James Kracht, a professor at Texas A&M’s college of education and a longtime player in the state’s textbook process, told me flatly, “Texas governs 46 or 47 states.”

For the rest (a lot more):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=3&ref=magazine

patteeu
02-16-2010, 10:06 AM
Good.

BTW, why shouldn't Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton be covered in a high school social studies ahead of Ted Kennedy? Gingrich led the Republicans to a historical takeover in the House after 40 years in the minority and Clinton was the first serious female challenger for the Presidency. What did Kennedy do besides be born into a famous family and have a long career in the Senate seat his dad practically bought? Hell, he's about the least noteworthy in his own family.

banyon
02-16-2010, 10:33 AM
Conservative dentists rewriting textbooks. Great.

InChiefsHell
02-16-2010, 10:35 AM
Conservative dentists rewriting textbooks. Great.

Yes, it would be much better if they were liberals rewriting textbooks.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 10:36 AM
Conservative dentists rewriting textbooks. Great.

You don't think the average conservative dentist has the intellectual capacity to evaluate competing arguments about what should go into a high school social studies text?

banyon
02-16-2010, 10:36 AM
Yes, it would be much better if they were liberals rewriting textbooks.

How about people familiar with education not seeking to politicize the process?

jjjayb
02-16-2010, 11:39 AM
How about people familiar with education not seeking to politicize the process?

Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 11:41 AM
Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?

I know a number of them. I was taught by a few.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 12:32 PM
I know a number of them. I was taught by a few.

Lies. Everyone knows it's the left's brainwashing plants. Universities, that is.

petegz28
02-16-2010, 12:48 PM
How about people familiar with education not seeking to politicize the process?

I.E., liberal professors

JohnnyV13
02-16-2010, 12:58 PM
Those christians with an agenda are really pieces of crap. One of the fundamental principles of our constitution is freedom. Freedom to pursue happiness, freedom from government oppression, freedom to think what we please about the divine.

When someone attempts to use the force of government to compel particular thoughts, they have stolen my money to violate my freedom.

Its one thing to say: Atheists are destroying our society. 1st amendment protects expression of that opinion. Its another to launch a multi million dollar ad campaign to condemn atheists (but, that is actually constitutionally protected as well). What is downright criminal is to hack into an atheist's bank account and drain their money in order to pay for it. That's what social engineers do when they use government to promote their agenda.

And, by social engineers, I mean liberals as well as conservatives.

banyon
02-16-2010, 01:04 PM
Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?

Plenty, but I live in Western Kansas.

But this post is about Texas, so it's not like Greenwich Village or something.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:18 PM
Those christians with an agenda are really pieces of crap. One of the fundamental principles of our constitution is freedom. Freedom to pursue happiness, freedom from government oppression, freedom to think what we please about the divine.

When someone attempts to use the force of government to compel particular thoughts, they have stolen my money to violate my freedom.

Its one thing to say: Atheists are destroying our society. 1st amendment protects expression of that opinion. Its another to launch a multi million dollar ad campaign to condemn atheists (but, that is actually constitutionally protected as well). What is downright criminal is to hack into an atheist's bank account and drain their money in order to pay for it. That's what social engineers do when they use government to promote their agenda.

And, by social engineers, I mean liberals as well as conservatives.

Once it's a given that social engineering is going to take place, it doesn't do your side any good if you stand on principle and yield the field to your ideological opposition, IMO. That's not to say that I'm on board with teaching every religious belief as fact. I don't see that happening here though. Instead I see a difference of opinion between people who want school children to learn about Billy Graham as a historical figure instead of Ted Kennedy.

It's fair to both support smaller government and at the same time work to influence the big government that exists in order to limit the damage it does from your ideological perspective.

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 01:22 PM
Once it's a given that social engineering is going to take place, it doesn't do your side any good if you stand on principle and yield the field to your ideological opposition, IMO. That's not to say that I'm on board with teaching every religious belief as fact. I don't see that happening here though. Instead I see a difference of opinion between people who want school children to learn about Billy Graham as a historical figure instead of Ted Kennedy.

It's fair to both support smaller government and at the same time work to influence the big government that exists in order to limit the damage it does from your ideological perspective.

Bold: That's why I'm so outspoken about it. If they're going to be pushy about it, I'm going to be pushy.

Italics: You aren't paying attention though. Texas, Oklahoma and Florida have all (after Kansas) tried to change curriculum to insert ID as a scientific idea. Oklahoma, for example, tried to get it to be an exemption for testing when a child decided to state his religious views to answer a scientific question. That is, a teacher couldn't flunk a student for answering "God did it" on a test. It is most certainly a teach religion as fact - especially in the south.

JohnnyV13
02-16-2010, 01:28 PM
Once it's a given that social engineering is going to take place, it doesn't do your side any good if you stand on principle and yield the field to your ideological opposition, IMO. That's not to say that I'm on board with teaching every religious belief as fact. I don't see that happening here though. Instead I see a difference of opinion between people who want school children to learn about Billy Graham as a historical figure instead of Ted Kennedy.

It's fair to both support smaller government and at the same time work to influence the big government that exists in order to limit the damage it does from your ideological perspective.

I understand that they (and you) see it as fighting fire with fire. But, what we end up doing is creating government as a social battleground. That actually increases the internal tension within a nation, and it really isn't necessary or particularly beneficial.

As for that dentist, he is a young earth proponent and wants that view in textbooks. That is downright wrong, especially since evolution is clearly within the realm of science and can be debated as a theory, but intelligent design has not one single experiment or even any coherent theory about how their premise impacts biology.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:50 PM
I understand that they (and you) see it as fighting fire with fire. But, what we end up doing is creating government as a social battleground. That actually increases the internal tension within a nation, and it really isn't necessary or particularly beneficial.

It's not just fighting fire with fire. If you were in a prison yard with 99 other inmates and every day at noon the food truck appeared with 50 cups of gruel, you can either get involved in the scrum for the nourishment you need to stay alive or you can stand on your principle of queuing up politely and go hungry. One of the reasons that leftist ideas permeate our society from journalism to education to government and beyond is because the left have been working through our education system for decades to implant their ideas early and often. There is a constant battle for mindshare of the next generation going on and conservatives shoot themselves in the foot if they stand back and hope that talk radio and the business school of hard knocks can counteract the damage done by the left's social engineering in the classroom.

As for that dentist, he is a young earth proponent and wants that view in textbooks. That is downright wrong, especially since evolution is clearly within the realm of science and can be debated as a theory, but intelligent design has not one single experiment or even any coherent theory about how their premise impacts biology.

The article didn't say that.

Reaper16
02-16-2010, 02:00 PM
One of the reasons that leftist ideas permeate our society from journalism to education to government and beyond is because the left have been working through our education system for decades to implant their ideas early and often. There is a constant battle for mindshare of the next generation going on and conservatives shoot themselves in the foot if they stand back and hope that talk radio and the business school of hard knocks can counteract the damage done by the left's social engineering in the classroom.
LMAO

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 02:29 PM
It's not just fighting fire with fire. If you were in a prison yard with 99 other inmates and every day at noon the food truck appeared with 50 cups of gruel, you can either get involved in the scrum for the nourishment you need to stay alive or you can stand on your principle of queuing up politely and go hungry. One of the reasons that leftist ideas permeate our society from journalism to education to government and beyond is because the left have been working through our education system for decades to implant their ideas early and often. There is a constant battle for mindshare of the next generation going on and conservatives shoot themselves in the foot if they stand back and hope that talk radio and the business school of hard knocks can counteract the damage done by the left's social engineering in the classroom.



The article didn't say that.

http://vogons.zetafleet.com/files/orly.jpg

http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/157/original/lolwutsp3.jpg

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 03:12 PM
It's not just fighting fire with fire. If you were in a prison yard with 99 other inmates and every day at noon the food truck appeared with 50 cups of gruel, you can either get involved in the scrum for the nourishment you need to stay alive or you can stand on your principle of queuing up politely and go hungry.

99 inmates fighting over 50 cups of gruel? That's the condition of our public education?

I thought this article was interesting because it shows how certain influences affect education, and what a particularly influential group's agenda is. I find it more than unfortunate that our public education is significantly left up to the desires of partisan hacks on a crusade who abandon almost all sense of objectivity in order to raise a state of conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats. Is there no place for a strive for objectivity in our education system? Or must we constantly go from one generation being grinded in their minds that the Founding Fathers were slave holders primarily interested in protecting their economic statuses, to the next learning that the Founding Fathers were Christian libertarians who spoke with one voice on the opposition of the welfare state?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:32 PM
99 inmates fighting over 50 cups of gruel? That's the condition of our public education?

I thought this article was interesting because it shows how certain influences affect education, and what a particularly influential group's agenda is. I find it more than unfortunate that our public education is significantly left up to the desires of partisan hacks on a crusade who abandon almost all sense of objectivity in order to raise a state of conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats. Is there no place for a strive for objectivity in our education system? Or must we constantly go from one generation being grinded in their minds that the Founding Fathers were slave holders primarily interested in protecting their economic statuses, to the next learning that the Founding Fathers were Christian libertarians who spoke with one voice on the opposition of the welfare state?

It would be nice if there was an objectively unbiased and balanced curriculum, but alas that's a pipe dream as unrealistic as a communist utopia or a state of anarchical libertarian bliss. There's only so much space in a high school social studies text book. You can't fit everything into that space so who gets cut out? No matter who makes these decisions, there's going to be a bias. Personally, I don't think that W.E.B Du Bois is so deserving of an extended entry that Daniel Boone should be squeezed out, but someone else might have the opposite opinion. How much time should be spent learning about why John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln as opposed to why Lincoln fired General McClellan? Do we have space to show both the good and the bad about John Brown and William Clarke Quantrill? These are the legitimate arguments that can't be avoided. I think we could reach a broad consensus here that we don't want fairy tale conservatism or white washed socialism in our text books.

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 03:36 PM
The article didn't say that.

Page 3 of the article only slightly mentioned his role in the creationism/evolution debate that stirred in Texas not too long ago. It's sufficient to say that he advocated the undermining of teaching evolution.

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 03:46 PM
It would be nice if there was an objectively unbiased and balanced curriculum, but alas that's a pipe dream as unrealistic as a communist utopia or a state of anarchical libertarian bliss. There's only so much space in a high school social studies text book. You can't fit everything into that space so who gets cut out? No matter who makes these decisions, there's going to be a bias. Personally, I don't think that W.E.B Du Bois is so deserving of an extended entry that Daniel Boone should be squeezed out, but someone else might have the opposite opinion. How much time should be spent learning about why John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln as opposed to why Lincoln fired General McClellan? Do we have space to show both the good and the bad about John Brown and William Clarke Quantrill? These are the legitimate arguments that can't be avoided. I think we could reach a broad consensus here that we don't want fairy tale conservatism or white washed socialism in our text books.

I agree that there are problems with deciding these issues. So we have to move on . . .

Texas is unique in that the state board of education chooses what books the district can buy with state money. In other words, every district has to have the books McLeroy's group has basically dictated to publishers that particular slant they want (America is a Christian nation, founded by Christian founders, we have a moral obligation to support Israel, and Ronald Reagan is the greatest of presidents).

What ends up happening is those districts who, like me, believe our youth should get textbooks that strive for objectivity and truth, end up having to pay more to purchase textbooks not on the Republican-approved list.

Reaper16
02-16-2010, 03:47 PM
It would be nice if there was an objectively unbiased and balanced curriculum, but alas that's a pipe dream as unrealistic as a communist utopia or a state of anarchical libertarian bliss. There's only so much space in a high school social studies text book. You can't fit everything into that space so who gets cut out? No matter who makes these decisions, there's going to be a bias. Personally, I don't think that W.E.B Du Bois is so deserving of an extended entry that Daniel Boone should be squeezed out, but someone else might have the opposite opinion. How much time should be spent learning about why John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln as opposed to why Lincoln fired General McClellan? Do we have space to show both the good and the bad about John Brown and William Clarke Quantrill? These are the legitimate arguments that can't be avoided. I think we could reach a broad consensus here that we don't want fairy tale conservatism or white washed socialism in our text books.
Screw you, Du Bois is awesome.

VAChief
02-16-2010, 04:58 PM
It would be nice if there was an objectively unbiased and balanced curriculum, but alas that's a pipe dream as unrealistic as a communist utopia or a state of anarchical libertarian bliss. There's only so much space in a high school social studies text book. You can't fit everything into that space so who gets cut out? No matter who makes these decisions, there's going to be a bias. Personally, I don't think that W.E.B Du Bois is so deserving of an extended entry that Daniel Boone should be squeezed out, but someone else might have the opposite opinion. How much time should be spent learning about why John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln as opposed to why Lincoln fired General McClellan? Do we have space to show both the good and the bad about John Brown and William Clarke Quantrill? These are the legitimate arguments that can't be avoided. I think we could reach a broad consensus here that we don't want fairy tale conservatism or white washed socialism in our text books.

Part of what you are talking about is because most if not all social studies curriculum is driven by what is assessed. M/C tests are inexpensive but increasingly useless in a Google society. Districts moving to more concept based curriculum focusing on learner inquiry better allow what you seem to want. Students of all ages are more engaged in what they seek to learn on their own within the context of a conceptual framework. When you have to research and investigate on your own, your own perspectives are better defended, expanded or both. If you teach conceptually with skills in mind instead of discrete facts (useless or often biased) the knowledge "gained" is less noteworthy imo.

AustinChief
02-16-2010, 05:22 PM
You don't think the average conservative dentist has the intellectual capacity to evaluate competing arguments about what should go into a high school social studies text?

Actually no. From my high school... most of the kids I considered dumb as posts went on to med school and the ones that may actually be functionally retarded became dentists.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 05:32 PM
Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?

I'm amazed at how many teachers I've met on the net who were into Marx or lean that way. It's like 9 out of ten.
That's even in elementary, middle and high school. I only know one Republican who is a conservative that teaches. But I know him in real life and none from the net.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 05:35 PM
Actually no. From my high school... most of the kids I considered dumb as posts went on to med school and the ones that may actually be functionally retarded became dentists.
Those must be the ones who got into dental or medical school when the govt made it easier for more kids to get into those schools. I know some very educated and intelligent dentists and doctors who study and read politics and political books. Ron Paul is one. He's even an economist.

BucEyedPea
02-16-2010, 05:36 PM
When someone attempts to use the force of government to compel particular thoughts, they have stolen my money to violate my freedom.

Just where is that happening?

MagicHef
02-16-2010, 05:48 PM
McLeroy moved that Margaret Sanger, the birth-control pioneer, be included because she “and her followers promoted eugenics,”

Did you bold this because you believe it to be false?

orange
02-16-2010, 05:58 PM
Did you bold this because you believe it to be false?

Hitler believed in eugenics. Should history books exclude mentioning him? I'm confused as to what is the point of the motion - to recognize her efforts to promote birth-control or her efforts to promote eugenics.

MagicHef
02-16-2010, 06:15 PM
Hitler believed in eugenics. Should history books exclude mentioning him?

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. McLeroy thinks that Sanger should be included in school curriculum because of her promotion of eugenics. I was asking Jenson if he disagreed with McLeroy. I, for one, believe that Sanger should be included, as she is certainly an historically significant figure.

orange
02-16-2010, 06:21 PM
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. McLeroy thinks that Sanger should be included in school curriculum because of her promotion of eugenics. I was asking Jenson if he disagreed with McLeroy. I, for one, believe that Sanger should be included, as she is certainly an historically significant figure.

I would agree - the whole thing was rather odd - so I looked a bit farther:


How Censors Think
By Dan

This month’s Texas State Board of Education debate over proposed new social studies curriculum standards provided many opportunities to see censorship at work. One of the most revealing instances of this came when state board member Don McLeroy, R-College Station, proposed adding Margaret Sanger and John Dewey to a list of individuals for high school American history students to study.

McLeroy was proposing a revision to a standard dealing with the Progressive Era. That standard, which already included Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells, and W.E.B. DuBois, asked students to “evaluate the impact of muckrakers and reform leaders . . . on American society.”

The proposed revision was curious considering that McLeroy is a prominent member of the board’s religious-right faction. Sanger is perhaps best known for her advocacy for the right of women to control their own bodies and for access to effective contraception. In fact, Sanger founded what became Planned Parenthood — an arch-demon for the religious right today. And sure enough, board member Terri Leo, R-Spring — another religious-righter — expressed surprise at the recommendation. But in response, McLeroy didn’t even mention Sanger’s work on reproductive health. He simply wanted students to learn about some bad people (as he saw them):

“The Progressive Era was not all sweetness and light. Margaret Sanger and her followers promoted eugenics. John Dewey’s progressive education (ideas) all but eliminated academics in schools, replaced it with vocational education. I think it’s a balance.”

“Balance”? It was clear that McLeroy wanted students to learn only conservative criticisms of Sanger and Dewey. But Leo and other far-right board members worried that new textbooks might teach other things about the two – maybe even positive things. Said Leo:

“[The standard] just says ‘evaluate the impact.’ It could be, they could take a positive impact. To me [Sanger's work] had a negative impact.”

Board member Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, suggested that since the board couldn’t require that textbooks focus on criticisms of Sanger and Dewey, perhaps it would be best if the curriculum standards included only people who had a generally ”positive” impact on American society (however she might define that). The arguments from Leo and Dunbar won out, thus keeping Sanger and Dewey out of the standards.

Regardless of the specific arguments for and against the inclusion of Sanger and Dewey (and like all influential people in history, they had flaws as well as strengths), the debate clearly illustrated how state board members are politicizing education. The board’s far-right members are determined to craft a standards document that clearly reflects a particular political point of view. And they want a black-and-white portrayal of history — either someone was evil or good, patriotic or not, Christian or anti-Christian. If that requires censoring what students learn about people in history, well, so be it, right?

In short, too many board members want students to look at the world the way they do: with a simplistic and distorted perspective that is a better fit for indoctrination than education. If we care about the future of our children and our state, we can’t allow them to succeed.

http://tfninsider.org/2010/01/27/how-censors-think/


Turns out she didn't get in after all - kids might think she had a positive contribution.

Or, as a conservative commentator put it:

10:25 a.m. Margaret Sanger suggested to be added to Social Studies curriculum. Amendment fails. McLeroy’s idea has merit, get Margaret Sanger out there so students can know that she supports eugenics, forced seletctive breeding and forced abortion, similar to views of Nazi Germany. But take a risk that it is not covered correctly.

http://texaslegislativeupdate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/social-studies-sboe-votes-part-2-live-blogging/

LOCOChief
02-16-2010, 06:21 PM
One of the reasons that leftist ideas permeate our society from journalism to education to government and beyond is because the left have been working through our education system for decades to implant their ideas early and often. There is a constant battle for mindshare of the next generation going on and conservatives shoot themselves in the foot if they stand back and hope that talk radio and the business school of hard knocks can counteract the damage done by the left's social engineering in the classroom.

TRUTH!

irishjayhawk
02-16-2010, 06:22 PM
TRUTH!

Yes, truth for people without an ounce of intellectual capacity.

VAChief
02-16-2010, 06:33 PM
Yes, truth for people without an ounce of intellectual capacity.

I didn't realize righties were such helpless victims! Beware Chairman School Marm!

Wyndex
02-16-2010, 07:28 PM
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 08:14 PM
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. McLeroy thinks that Sanger should be included in school curriculum because of her promotion of eugenics. I was asking Jenson if he disagreed with McLeroy. I, for one, believe that Sanger should be included, as she is certainly an historically significant figure.

No, I didn't include it because I thought it was false. I included it because I thought it was a more important part of the article, so that if people who just want to glace over the article (because they don't have enough time or desire to read the whole thing) can hit the highlights.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 09:12 PM
I agree that there are problems with deciding these issues. So we have to move on . . .

Texas is unique in that the state board of education chooses what books the district can buy with state money. In other words, every district has to have the books McLeroy's group has basically dictated to publishers that particular slant they want (America is a Christian nation, founded by Christian founders, we have a moral obligation to support Israel, and Ronald Reagan is the greatest of presidents).

What ends up happening is those districts who, like me, believe our youth should get textbooks that strive for objectivity and truth, end up having to pay more to purchase textbooks not on the Republican-approved list.

I'm glad to see that you appreciate the dangers of centralized control over education. Remember that when conservatives complain about the Department of Education.

I think it would be better if every district selected it's own text book based on what parents in that district wanted their kids to learn about.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 09:15 PM
Actually no. From my high school... most of the kids I considered dumb as posts went on to med school and the ones that may actually be functionally retarded became dentists.

:LOL: Unrelated to your post, I hope, my first career aspiration was to be a dentist (when I was in junior high school).

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 09:28 PM
Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?

There are about 20-30% of us; many of whom voted for Reagan, Bush, and even GW (at least once.) OTOH even most leftists in education tend to value education and pedagogy above ideology and partisanship--so even they, don't stifle debate the way Rush/Hannity/Beck claim. OTOH, as a member of a conservative-leaning minority of a large faculty, our faculty prides itself on NOT being blatantly political.

Sure, during discussions bias creeps in....but most educators enjoy, welcome even, cognitive dissonance. The real problem is that too many students are either oblivious, or too apathetic, to really care about a substantive discussion on such issues.

:LOL: Unrelated to your post, I hope, my first career aspiration was to be a dentist (when I was in junior high school).

That makes a whole lot of sense, now that you mention it. Heh.

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 09:34 PM
I'm glad to see that you appreciate the dangers of centralized control over education. Remember that when conservatives complain about the Department of Education.

I'm a communitarian, pat.

Well, maybe . . . maybe not.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 09:46 PM
There are about 20-30% of us; many of whom voted for Reagan, Bush, and even GW (at least once.) OTOH even most leftists in education tend to value education and pedagogy above ideology and partisanship--so even they, don't stifle debate the way Rush/Hannity/Beck claim. OTOH, as a member of a conservative-leaning minority of a large faculty, our faculty prides itself on NOT being blatantly political.

Sure, during discussions bias creeps in....but most educators enjoy, welcome even, cognitive dissonance. The real problem is that too many students are either oblivious, or too apathetic, to really care about a substantive discussion on such issues.

It's a testament to how far left teachers tend to be that a guy who believes in government run health care sees himself as one of the 20-30% right wing of the profession.

Mr. Kotter
02-16-2010, 10:02 PM
It's a testament to how far left teachers tend to be that a guy who believes in government run health care sees himself as one of the 20-30% right wing of the profession.

You misrepresent me; I've not endorsed ANY specific plan.

Only that the government, regrettably, must intervene. Because the industry and states refuse to act on their own. FTR, I oppose single-payer, or a government "take-over" of health care. My only point is that SOMETHING drastic needs to be done to wake these greedy assholes up to the reality that....government WILL fix things if they don't.

Don't misrepresent that view, sir; unless you wish to become the asshole you seem intent on becoming. :rolleyes:

Jenson71
02-16-2010, 10:43 PM
I'm glad to see that you appreciate the dangers of centralized control over education. Remember that when conservatives complain about the Department of Education.

I think it would be better if every district selected it's own text book based on what parents in that district wanted their kids to learn about.

Do you know if the ED determines for districts receiving federal funds what textbooks they can use?

The Department of Education complaints are a classic Reagan soundbite that gets rehashed whenever some Republicans want to make a strong "big government" scare.

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 04:43 AM
I'm glad to see that you appreciate the dangers of centralized control over education. Remember that when conservatives complain about the Department of Education.

I think it would be better if every district selected it's own text book based on what parents in that district wanted their kids to learn about.

That's more dangerous than any centralized education system.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 05:34 AM
You misrepresent me; I've not endorsed ANY specific plan.

Only that the government, regrettably, must intervene. Because the industry and states refuse to act on their own. FTR, I oppose single-payer, or a government "take-over" of health care. My only point is that SOMETHING drastic needs to be done to wake these greedy assholes up to the reality that....government WILL fix things if they don't.

Don't misrepresent that view, sir; unless you wish to become the asshole you seem intent on becoming. :rolleyes:

I didn't misrepresent you. I didn't associate you with any specific plan. I'll stick with what I said.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 05:37 AM
Do you know if the ED determines for districts receiving federal funds what textbooks they can use?

The Department of Education complaints are a classic Reagan soundbite that gets rehashed whenever some Republicans want to make a strong "big government" scare.

No, I don't think they do that.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 05:39 AM
That's more dangerous than any centralized education system.

As long as your view prevails then I don't feel sorry for you when some religious dentist prevents Ted Kennedy from getting equal billing with Newt Gingrich in high school social studies texts.

irishjayhawk
02-17-2010, 02:10 PM
As long as your view prevails then I don't feel sorry for you when some religious dentist prevents Ted Kennedy from getting equal billing with Newt Gingrich in high school social studies texts.

We're not talking about two figures such as that. We're talking about figures that belong in history and those that don't. Emphasizing Newt over Kennedy is small potatoes.

I don't buy your assertion there.

NewChief
02-17-2010, 02:52 PM
This, predominantly conservative, local education blog weighed in on the issue:

http://mid-riffs.com/2010/02/texas-is-at-it-again/

As a lifelong Arkansan it is almost a foregone conclusion that I am not all that fond of the state to our southwest. And I just discovered another reason to dislike Texas. Wingnuts on the Texas Board of Education are working to single-handedly rewrite history. Don McLeroy, the same board member who attempted to remove science from the science books, and his band of imperialist “Christians” want the Texas social studies guidelines rewritten to portray America “as a nation intended to be emphatically Christian.” The New York Times had a great article on Sunday detailing the battle.
Why, exactly, should the rest of us care? Well because Texas’..
… $22 billion education fund is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually — which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.
McLeroy contends that “textbooks are mostly the product of the liberal establishment, and they’re written with the idea that our religion and our liberty are in conflict.” He may have a point there, but he goes too far when he attempts to force his particular brand of religion on other people’s children.
While it is true that a Judeo-Christian world view certainly influenced the founders’ thinking and that at the time of the nation’s founding, religion was more a part of civic life than it is today, it is also true that the authors of the constitution took great pains to protect individual liberty and choice. They did not set in place a system to ensure people remained Christian. They created a system of government which they thought would ensure that people remain free.
Religion is not at odds with liberty; McLeroy’s authoritarian nature is.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 03:14 PM
Good.

I don' tmuch care about the rest of your post (re Ted Kennedy), but the Christian conservative takeover of public school schoolbook is abominable.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 04:20 PM
We're not talking about two figures such as that. We're talking about figures that belong in history and those that don't. Emphasizing Newt over Kennedy is small potatoes.

I don't buy your assertion there.

What's to buy? Read the article. What do you find so objectionable specifically?

orange
03-11-2010, 10:17 PM
Had to bring this back up because I just stumbled onto this little tidbit from last week:

Ratliff tops McLeroy in tight Texas ed board race

09:18 AM CST on Wednesday, March 3, 2010
By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN — Mount Pleasant Republican Thomas Ratliff narrowly beat veteran State Board of Education member Don McLeroy in the GOP primary for the board seat that represents Collin County and much of Northeast Texas.

The fiercely contested race pitted McLeroy, a dentist from College Station and member of the board’s social conservative bloc, against Ratliff, a legislative consultant and son of former Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff.

In an upset, long-time Republican board member Geraldine Miller of Dallas lost to Dallas high school educator George Clayton. Miller outspent Clayton in the race and had been favored to win another term.

With critical board decisions looming in the future about such volatile issues as coverage of evolution in new science textbooks and which political figures are included in new history books, Ratliff and McLeroy offered sharply different views about how they would make those decisions.

McLeroy, one of the most outspoken social conservatives on the panel, ran firmly on his record as he faced his toughest opponent since he was first elected to the board in 1998.

Ratliff who began running for the board in the middle of last year, garnered the support of mainstream public education groups who have been increasingly at odds with McLeroy and his allies on the board.

“I want to take politics out of our public schools,” Ratliff said during his campaign. He told gatherings across the district that Texans are tired of political posturing on the board as the social conservative bloc — led by McLeroy — tries to impose its views in history, science and other areas of the curriculum.

“Our kids don’t go to red schools. They don’t go to blue schools. They go to local schools,” he said, also criticizing attempts by some board members to inject their religious beliefs into what children are taught.

McLeroy was unapologetic about the actions of the social conservatives over the last three years when they held seven of the 15 seats on the board.

Frequently — but not always — they were able to gain a majority by picking up an eighth vote from one of the other three Republicans on the board or one of the five Democrats.

“While my opponent says these last few years have been distractions, I look at them as being incredible accomplishments that will help our children,” he told voters.

No Democrat has filed in the race, so the winner of the GOP primary is expected to cruise to election in November over Libertarian Jeff McGee.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/030210dnpoledboard.3a15ed5.html

KCWolfman
03-12-2010, 12:59 AM
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." - Benjamin Franklin

<b>"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
</b>George Washington

<b>"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be"</B>
John Adams

"<b>The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity.I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."</b>
John Adams
<b>
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."</b>
Thomas Jefferson from "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" page 385

<b>"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"</B>
Thomas Jefferson
<b>
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped."</b>
Ben Franklin

<b>As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see"</b>
Ben Franklin
<b>
"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." </b>
James Madison

lostcause
03-12-2010, 01:45 AM
It would be nice if there was an objectively unbiased and balanced curriculum, but alas that's a pipe dream as unrealistic as a communist utopia or a state of anarchical libertarian bliss. There's only so much space in a high school social studies text book. You can't fit everything into that space so who gets cut out? No matter who makes these decisions, there's going to be a bias. Personally, I don't think that W.E.B Du Bois is so deserving of an extended entry that Daniel Boone should be squeezed out, but someone else might have the opposite opinion. How much time should be spent learning about why John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln as opposed to why Lincoln fired General McClellan? Do we have space to show both the good and the bad about John Brown and William Clarke Quantrill? These are the legitimate arguments that can't be avoided. I think we could reach a broad consensus here that we don't want fairy tale conservatism or white washed socialism in our text books.

Why would you lump libertarians with anarchists?

orange
03-12-2010, 02:39 AM
<b>
"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."</b>
Thomas Jefferson from "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" page 385



What he REALLY said:

I, too, have made a wee-little book
from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy
of Jesus ; it is a paradigma of His doctrines, made by
cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them
on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of
time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel
of ethics I have never seen ; it is a document in proof
that / am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple
of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the
Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Chris
tians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw
all their characteristic dogmas from what its Author
never said nor saw. They have compounded from
the heathen mysteries a system beyond the compre
hension of man, of which the great Reformer of the
vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were He to re
turn on earth, would not recognize one feature. If
1 had time, I would add to my little book the Greek,
Lat n and French texts, in columns side by side.
And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi s
Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, not
withstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and carica
tures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining
of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious
indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical
extravagances of his rival sects.

http://www.archive.org/stream/jeffersonthomas14lipsrich/jeffersonthomas14lipsrich_djvu.txt


Jefferson considered himself a deist; he also considered himself a follower of Jesus. This is not a contradiction, in Jefferson's view, because he believed Jesus to be merely human, not divine, and believed the precepts Jesus taught to be deistical. Much of traditional Christianity, Jefferson claimed, was error and corruption added by later followers of Jesus.

Jefferson was a strong supporter of the separation of church and state, believing that both government and religion would be strengthened by keeping each free of the corrupting influence of the other.

From a PBS website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html):

Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These "Platonists" had thoroughly muddled Jesus' original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there.

With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching "too hastily" as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is "extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John." In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus.

Jefferson set aside his New Testament research, returning to it again in the summer of 1820. This time, he completed a more ambitious work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English. The text of the New Testament appears in four parallel columns in four languages. Jefferson omitted the words that he thought were inauthentic and retained those he believed were original. The resulting work is commonly known as the "Jefferson Bible."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html

orange
03-12-2010, 02:50 AM
<b>
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped."</b>
Ben Franklin


What he REALLY said:

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."


http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

orange
03-12-2010, 03:06 AM
"<b>The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."</b>
John Adams
<b>


What he REALLY said:

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
http://positiveliberty.com/2006/06/american-destiny-and-providentialism.html

Ah, yes. The Gospel of Frederick and the Revelations to Voltaire. Surely they're in your Bible, right?
Probably right after the Book of Juno:

...the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.

Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?

http://positiveliberty.com/2005/10/john-adams-unitarian-universalist-seeker-of-the-truth.html

KCWolfman
03-12-2010, 03:20 AM
What he REALLY said:

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."


http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

Point is, Orange, that every single founding father was not a deist as many liberals want us to believe. Nor is the basis of our nation built solely upon the one who admittedly was.

As proven by the many Christians who signed and defended the single most solid document every written for government of the people.

patteeu
03-12-2010, 05:25 AM
Why would you lump libertarians with anarchists?

I didn't. I mentioned a brand of libertarian extremism as one end of a spectrum.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:29 AM
How about people familiar with education not seeking to politicize the process?

I think you are pissing in a fan there. Virtually all of the "higher educational" venues in the country are biased in a very liberal fashion. In Kansas we have one of the most liberal universities in the nation. I bet you would feel fine if any of the graduates there were involved with rewriting history from a liberal perspective.

Your argument against a dentist is shameful, or is your point only from the perspective that he is a conservative? I presume that a MD wouldn't be able to have an input unless he was known to be a liberal, eh?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:32 AM
Find me an educator who could do that. How many educators do you know who aren't far left in their beliefs?
That is exactly his motive. Nobody should be writing anything into text books unless they live the liberal lifestyle.

Most liberals eventually figure out that the concepts are not really viable when they start making money only to be taxed enough to know that something is wrong. Those that are truly brainwashed can't see where it is leading. Take banyon for an example, blind as a bat...

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:32 AM
I know a number of them. I was taught by a few.

ROFL

First grade maybe?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:33 AM
Lies. Everyone knows it's the left's brainwashing plants. Universities, that is.

Bad joke, but more true than false and not really much of a joke.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:35 AM
Those christians with an agenda are really pieces of crap. One of the fundamental principles of our constitution is freedom. Freedom to pursue happiness, freedom from government oppression, freedom to think what we please about the divine.

When someone attempts to use the force of government to compel particular thoughts, they have stolen my money to violate my freedom.

Its one thing to say: Atheists are destroying our society. 1st amendment protects expression of that opinion. Its another to launch a multi million dollar ad campaign to condemn atheists (but, that is actually constitutionally protected as well). What is downright criminal is to hack into an atheist's bank account and drain their money in order to pay for it. That's what social engineers do when they use government to promote their agenda.

And, by social engineers, I mean liberals as well as conservatives.

Never heard that before, got a link to the story?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:37 AM
Actually no. From my high school... most of the kids I considered dumb as posts went on to med school and the ones that may actually be functionally retarded became dentists.

I would really have to see some substantial data on that one.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 07:57 AM
Point is, Orange, that every single founding father was not a deist as many liberals want us to believe. Nor is the basis of our nation built solely upon the one who admittedly was.

As proven by the many Christians who signed and defended the single most solid document every written for government of the people.
That's correct. The truth is they were both. Many were Christian and some were deists.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 08:01 AM
So long as education is delivered by govt it will be politicized. The more govt in it, the more politicized it will be. That includes more and more Fed involvement. My observation is that most teachers are lefties. They are not going to put themselves out of work or in a work environment that punishes all the right people—the market.

I know a small handful of conservatives in education compared to progressives. In fact, too many of them are flat out Marxists some who will admit it. Some who won't. I even know one who is a communist.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 08:02 AM
I would really have to see some substantial data on that one.

The govt made getting into med and dental school easier at some point in time. The govt lowered the standards. Can you imagine that? It's typical of wherever govt operates.

PunkinDrublic
03-12-2010, 08:43 AM
No wonder Texas ranks near the bottom in education. Nice job cons.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 09:19 AM
The govt made getting into med and dental school easier at some point in time. The govt lowered the standards. Can you imagine that? It's typical of wherever govt operates.

That's a societal trend that cannot be blamed solely, or even predominantly, on government. It has every bit as much to do with money-grabs by colleges to increase enrollements and revenues at the expense of standards, and even more to do with students and parents of students and alumni who insist that numbers of graduates and "streamlined" curriculum are good for them, and the "business" of the university is more important than reputations and selective acceptance which would exclude too many underachievers.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 09:31 AM
That's a societal trend that cannot be blamed solely, or even predominantly, on government. It has every bit as much to do with money-grabs by colleges to increase enrollements and revenues at the expense of standards, and even more to do with students and parents of students and alumni who insist that numbers of graduates and "streamlined" curriculum are good for them, and the "business" of the university is more important than reputations and selective acceptance which would exclude too many underachievers.

If that were true then why didn't those money-grabbing colleges and schools do it earlier? They didn't. There was even a 60 minutes program about this too. You can say that colleges/universities in general have become more money grabbing due to the aid govt is providing for students too. That increases demand which means colleges can increase costs. It's all been more of a gravy train than ever before. Those colleges like getting that money. Underneath it all, though, is not free-market forces but govt policy. Sorry but it's date coincident. In the end, the market always has the last say.

Hydrae
03-12-2010, 09:44 AM
Are we ready to finish nationalizing primary education?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/52104

Ambrose: Big Brother steps in on education
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 03/11/2010 - 16:34 By JAY AMBROSE, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion

Hand it to the states. All but two of them saw that their K-12 math and English standards could maybe do with some possible upgrading, and so they got together and worked out some improvements they could either adopt or not.

They finished the process, have been preparing for the most part to embrace the results after some weeks of public comment, and guess what? Here comes President Obama saying he will be happy to make sure all states get on board or else. No fooling around, folks. No federalism here. No freedom from Big Brother. You will have to snap to or just maybe risk losing your Title I education funds.

It's incredible, at least to some of us, how Washington just won't leave well enough alone, how our masters from on high feel they have to dictate what people are already doing without their interference. To get around constitutional restraints, these busybody bumblers cleverly, nastily, unjustly threaten to deny you money they have been dishing out, like parents withholding an allowance from potentially recalcitrant children.

But more of that later. Let's look at these proposed, new national standards, which are something short of an indisputable good but do seem to have considerable merit. There's the fact that, as of now, a high school degree can mean the graduate has climbed academic mountains in some states but has laid low in the valley in others.

It's those undemanding states that are worrisome. Don't doubt that some have really lousy, inadequate standards, and some young people consequently suffer in multitudinous ways and perhaps for the rest of their lives.

The other side of it, critics tell us, is that "one size does not fit all." For instance, it's pointed out, the new standards would have children master certain math concepts at a younger age than will be possible for some. What's so wrong with putting that learning off until later? A libertarian critique is that choosing one curriculum for all or most public schools crowds out other curricula that might be more intellectually enabling or in a variety of ways more suitable for certain students. Why not allow for more innovation?
A case in point appears to be high-achieving Massachusetts. Implementing these standards, one observer says, means others would have to be "dumbed down." An official in Texas, which along with Alaska, did not participate in the project, says his state's standards are already mostly parallel to those that are recommended, but that Texas simply wants its freedom to figure out curricula.

Understand as well that implementing the new standards is not free or doable in a minute. Some states, it is noted, will have to undergo a massive retraining of teachers, which will be expensive and time-consuming.
Federal interference, it is argued, is one way the standards of some states got to be so low in the first place. President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law (which for a long time seemed to me a good thing) enforces penalties when schools don't perform up to a level determined by state-determined tests. To avoid the penalties, the tests were made easy to the point of meaninglessness, it's said.

Obama's plan appears to be to assess penalties based on the new standards, which is to say, states could be inhibited from deciding the experiment maybe hasn't worked, or to emphasize liberal arts perhaps more than the new standards would permit, or decide to exceed those standards in particular ways or to adjust them to special needs.

The thing is, most of the states are marching in the right direction on their own, but can turn one way or the other as becomes obviously necessary to make they don't tumble off a cliff. Point a financial gun at their heads and maneuverability becomes more limited and diving off cliffs more likely.

(Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado. He can be reached at SpeaktoJay(at)aol.com.)

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 09:47 AM
If that were true then why didn't those money-grabbing colleges and schools do it earlier? They didn't. There was even a 60 minutes program about this too. You can say that colleges/universities in general have become more money grabbing due to the aid govt is providing for students too. That increases demand which means colleges can increase costs. It's all been more of a gravy train than ever before. Those colleges like getting that money. Underneath it all, though, is not free-market forces but govt policy. Sorry but it's date coincident. In the end, the market always has the last say.
Whatever would you do if you didn't have the government to blame for everything, and I do mean everything?

:rolleyes:

FTR, the extremes and exceses of government can become intrusive, burdensome, and even destructive. However, liberty and freedom that lead to plutocratic caste systems and anarchy are even worse. The key, in our republic, is avoiding excesses while seeking a balance that serves the greater good.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 10:13 AM
ROFL

First grade maybe?

No. Take for example, my Psychology and Law professor at William Paterson: Neil Kressel (http://ww2.wpunj.edu/cohss/psychology/NeilKressel.htm). That man was proud to be both a conservative Jew and a conservative faculty member.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 10:15 AM
I know a small handful of conservatives in education compared to progressives. In fact, too many of them are flat out Marxists some who will admit it. Some who won't. I even know one who is a communist.

The days of "many" Marxists in the university are over.

Who is the communist you know?

orange
03-12-2010, 10:29 AM
Are we ready to finish nationalizing primary education?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/52104

Ambrose: Big Brother steps in on education
Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 03/11/2010 - 16:34 By JAY AMBROSE, Scripps Howard News Service editorials and opinion

*blather, blarney, and bunkum*


What the National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers actually have to say (on their own website http://www.corestandards.org/FAQ.htm):

What is the appropriate role of the federal government in this initiative?
The federal government can:

Support this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support for states to effectively implement the standards as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Provide additional long-term financial support for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal professional development, other related common core state standards supports, and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core state standards over time.

Revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states' international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.

Hydrae
03-12-2010, 10:34 AM
What the National Governors' Association and Council of Chief State School Officers actually have to say (on their own website http://www.corestandards.org/FAQ.htm):

What is the appropriate role of the federal government in this initiative?
The federal government can:

Support this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support for states to effectively implement the standards as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Provide additional long-term financial support for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal professional development, other related common core state standards supports, and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core state standards over time.

Revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states' international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.

Right and when any state does not fall into line they will find themselves with less federal funds. We have seen this happen many times in the past when the feds get involved with things. The one that comes immediately to mind is highway funding and the requirement in the late 70's and 80's for a 55 MPH speed limit. If a state did not want to enforce that the federal goverment withheld highway dollars.

Do you really expect the feds not to expand this and use it to force states to fall into line? Sorry, I really dislike this top down approach to governance.

NewChief
03-12-2010, 10:36 AM
Right and when any state does not fall into line they will find themselves with less federal funds. We have seen this happen many times in the past when the feds get involved with things. The one that comes immediately to mind is highway funding and the requirement in the late 70's and 80's for a 55 MPH speed limit. If a state did not want to enforce that the federal goverment withheld highway dollars.

Do you really expect the feds not to expand this and use it to force states to fall into line? Sorry, I really dislike this top down approach to governance.

That's already happened. The states who didn't sign onto this were cut out of the Race to the Top grant application process. You libertarians should really check out Yong Zhao's book "Catching Up or Leading the Way." He does an awesome job of showing how the federal government is fucking up education.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2009/09/yong_zhao_dont_abandon_creativ.html

By Anthony Cody on September 19, 2009 10:50 PM | 6 Comments | No TrackBacks
In July I encountered a video featuring Chinese-born scholar Yong Zhao who turned the push for global competitiveness in our schools on its head. Rather than focusing on "raising the bar" through tougher standards and more tests, he suggested we had much more to gain by enhancing what is best in American schools - our spirit of creativity and innovation.

This month Zhao published a book, Catching Up or Leading the Way; American Education in the Age of Globalization, which provides solid backing for his perspective. Zhao has an unusual background - raised in a rural village in China, he considers himself lucky that he escaped some of the tyranny of his nation's rigid schooling. He reports firsthand how the Chinese system, rooted in the keju -- the civil service exams developed 1400 years ago, has resulted in a culture that values test performance above all else. The Chinese word for education is dushu, which literally means reading the books. Until the start of the 20th century, this meant the ability to memorize classic texts and reinterpret or restate them. More recently it has meant intensive preparation for the gaokao - the college entrance exam, which has many of the same qualities as the keju.

The result of this emphasis on test ability is a systematic stifling of creativity and innovation. Paradoxically, Zhao reports, many of those who score highest on tests in school fail to live up to this potential in their careers after graduation. As a society, China has failed to produce innovations in spite of leading the world in manufacturing. In 2005, there were 21,519 patent applications from China, while more than 134,000 originated from the United States. Furthermore, most of the Chinese patents were for changes in appearance, rather than original inventions.

Zhao makes a strong case that uniform tests result in monolithic thinking. In the modern global economy, the passion that results when people are allowed to develop along diverse paths is far more precious than the large scale mediocrity that results from national standards and a test-centered (or "data-driven") school culture.

Asian leaders are keenly aware of these problems, and have launched education reforms that sound much like those being advocated here by the 21st Century Skills movement. In Singapore, Zhao tells us, reforms aim to reduce subject content and increase critical thinking. They are allowing greater autonomy for teachers and schools, and encouraging diversity and flexibility.

Zhao writes:
While the United States is moving towards more standardization and centralization, the Asian countries are working hard to allow more flexibility and autonomy at the local level. While the United States is investing resources to ensure all students are taking the same courses and pass the same tests, the Asian countries are advocating for more individualization and attending to emotions, creativity and other skills. While the United States is raising the stakes on testing, the Asian countries are exerting great efforts to reduce the power and pressure of testing.
Why are the Asian countries, which some American reformers admire, eager to abandon their education tradition, which seems to have resulted in high test scores or academic excellence, and instead learn from America? The answer is simple: because they know very well the damage that results from standardization and high stakes testing.
Zhao makes no bones about the implications of his observations. He concludes:

American education is at a crossroads. Two paths lie in front of us: one in which we destroy our strengths in order to catch up with others on test scores and one in which we build on our strengths so we can keep the lead in innovation and creativity. The current push for more standardization, centralization, high stakes testing, and test-based accountability is rushing us down the first path, while what will keep America truly strong and American prosperous should be the latter, the one that cherishes individual talents, cultivates creativity, celebrates diversity, and inspires curiosity. As we enter a new world rapidly changed by globalization and technology, we need to change course. Instead of instilling fear in the public about the rise of other countries, bureaucratizing education with bean-counting policies, demoralizing educators through dubious accountability measures, homogenizing school curriculum, and turning children into test takers, we should inform the public about the possibilities brought about by globalization, encourage education innovations, inspire educators with genuine support, diversify and decentralize curriculum, and educate children as confident, unique, and well-rounded human beings.

I believe this book helps illuminate the challenges posed by both Merrow and Ravitch this week. Zhao helps us understand why the US, in spite of the frequent sloppy indictments of our schools, remains a world leader in scientific and creative innovation. He provides a solid defense of the critical thinking skills derided by Ravitch, and warns us of the dangers of the test-centered path we are on. Most pointedly, he questions the contradiction between President Obama's condemnation of the emphasis on tests, and his embrace of "tougher, clearer standards" as the key to reform.

In his afterward, he weighs in on the latest effort to standardize education in the US:

Theoretically national curriculum standards for each subject can be useful, but unless we can develop sound standards for all subjects and knowledge we think our students should have, unless we can develop and implement valid and reliable assessment for all standards, unless we can enable our students to choose from a wide range of offerings, and unless we can attach equal value to a broad range of knowledge and skills, national standards will do more harm than good.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 10:39 AM
No. Take for example, my Psychology and Law professor at William Paterson: Neil Kressel (http://ww2.wpunj.edu/cohss/psychology/NeilKressel.htm). That man was proud to be both a conservative Jew and a conservative faculty member.

Jenson, nobody really cares.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 10:41 AM
....

Who is the communist you know?


Me, I think. ;)

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Me, I think. ;)

Naw, I think Jenson is who every refers to as the local communist. ROFL

orange
03-12-2010, 10:46 AM
That's already happened. The states who didn't sign onto this were cut out of the Race to the Top grant application process. You libertarians should really check out Yong Zhao's book "Catching Up or Leading the Way." He does an awesome job of showing how the federal government is ****ing up education.


No dice. Texas and Alaska CHOSE not to participate in "Race to the Top."

The Texas Tribune

Friday, March 12, 2010


Race to the Top is a competitive federal grant program, offering one-time money to state education systems. In Texas, it became a flashpoint for states' rights issues when Gov. Rick Perry chose not to apply to the program.

The U.S. Department of Education built the program as a type of education stimulus — $4.35 billion worth of grants to be divvied up amongst winning states. Larger states could apply for more money; the biggest grants stand at $700 million. According to the federal website, the grants focus on reform in at least one of four areas:

"Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
Turning around our lowest-achieving schools."

The program became contentious as the Department of Education chose to place emphasis on states' previous efforts to create a nationwide, standard core curriculum. Texas (along with Alaska) were the only states that did not sign on initiative. Not participating would have cost Texas at least 40 points, and some estimated it would cost as many as 70.

The debate in Texas soon became one of federal power versus states' rights. Perry and his appointee, Education Commissioner Robert Scott, both spoke out against the common standards — Scott went so far as to call them “a step toward a federal takeover of the nation’s public schools.”

The governor also argued that changing the standards would cost far more than the $700 million in potential grant money. The application did not require Texas to adopt national standards, despite docking points for non-compliance.

Texas was ultimately one of ten states that did not apply. By the time Perry announced that Texas would not participate, the Texas Education Agency had spent abour 800 hours on the application.

After the announcement, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argued that the standards were not mandatory and there was no reason not to apply for the grants.

http://www.texastribune.org/topics/race-top/

NewChief
03-12-2010, 10:48 AM
No dice. Texas and Alaska CHOSE not to participate in "Race to the Top."

The Texas Tribune

The program became contentious as the Department of Education chose to place emphasis on states' previous efforts to create a nationwide, standard core curriculum. Texas (along with Alaska) were the only states that did not sign on initiative. Not participating would have cost Texas at least 40 points, and some estimated it would cost as many as 70.

http://www.texastribune.org/topics/race-top/

From the same article. It wouldn't automatically disqualify them, but it would be a pretty big hit on their score card.

orange
03-12-2010, 10:50 AM
Perry won't let Texas compete for federal school money
By ERICKA MELLON
Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle
Jan. 13, 2010, 10:05PM

Texas will not compete for a potential $700 million in federal grant funding for schools, Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday, because it could give Washington too much say in deciding what the state's students should learn.

His decision to forgo the money available in the Race to the Top grant competition defied pleas from local school leaders who said their districts could use it. But Perry, joined by state Education Commissioner Robert Scott, said the funding came with too many federal strings — such as having to adopt national curriculum standards.

“Our states and our communities must reserve the right to decide how we educate our children and not surrender that control to a federal bureaucracy,” Perry said in Houston, where many superintendents had lobbied for his support of the grant.

Thirty-nine other states and the District of Columbia have told the U.S. Department of Education they intend to apply for the first round of the Race to the Top funding. The $4 billion will go to those that embrace certain reform efforts such as national standards, charter schools and the use of student test scores in teachers' job evaluations. Texas and Alaska are the only states not to join a common standards initiative.

Perry's decision to stay out of the grant contest drew praise from local teachers groups, who oppose some of the ideas promoted by the grant. State lawmakers generally split along party lines.

Based on its size, Texas could have qualified for $350 million to $700 million — or $75 to $150 per student.

“Everybody can use money,” said state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, who chairs the House Public Education Committee. “But if you look at a one-time infusion of $80 per child and then having to change your laws permanently — we're better off doing what we're doing.”

The president of the Texas Association of School Boards, which represents the state's 1,035 districts, disagreed.

“The governor's unilateral decision not to submit a plan means that Texas school districts that are facing serious financial challenges will not have an opportunity to apply for federal funding to implement positive changes in our schools,” said Sarah Winkler, also an Alief school trustee. “Even one-time funding would allow districts to institute meaningful reforms.”

HISD chief disappointed
Terry Grier, superintendent of the Houston Independent School District, the largest district in the state, said he is disappointed Texas is sitting on the sidelines in the grant competition and in the drafting of national curriculum standards.

“If our standards are that much better, why don't we get in there and convince everyone else in the nation to rise to our level?” Grier asked.

The state's major teachers groups — the Texas Classroom Teachers Association and the local chapter of the American Federation of Teachers — had urged Perry and Scott not to apply for Race to the Top.

“It's hard to justify the adoption of policies that we think are detrimental to Texas for such a minimal investment,” said Linda Bridges, president of Texas-AFT.

Bridges said the grant encouraged “draconian” ways to fix struggling schools, such as closing them. She also disagreed with its call to link student test scores to high-stakes personnel decisions — a move the HISD school board plans to make today.

State Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, described Perry's move to shun the federal grant as “shocking.”

“His argument against applying boils down to the fact that he doesn't like the teacher that will grade his test,” Coleman said in a statement. “This is an application that even awards points for his own pet policies — teacher incentive pay and charter school expansion.”

Motives questioned
Some states, California and Florida among them, scrambled to change their laws to qualify for the Race to the Top, while Perry delayed announcing whether Texas would apply until just days before the application is due.

As of last week, Texas Education Agency staff had spent 700 to 800 hours on the application in case the governor gave the green light.

State Rep. Scott Hochberg, D-Houston, pointed out that Texas would lose only 70 points on a 500-point grant application by not participating in the national standards movement.

“I share concerns about the national curriculum, but we could have left that out of our proposal and still competed for the money,” Hochberg said. “Why would we throw in the towel before seeing how well we stacked up against other states?”

U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Perry's main rival in the Republican gubernatorial primary, also supports local curriculum standards but questioned Perry's motives for rebuffing the grant.

“We all believe that Texas children should be taught by Texas standards and hope that today's decision was more about the state of our schools and not election-year politics,” said Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky.

Bill White, the former Houston mayor and a Democratic candidate for governor, said Perry should have applied for the grant and tailored it to the state's school improvement goals.

“To improve our schools at no cost to local property taxpayers,” White said in a statement, “we need to get back the tax dollars sent by Texans to Washington.”

Chronicle reporter Joe Holley contributed to this story.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6813774.html

NewChief
03-12-2010, 10:53 AM
So Texas voluntarily withdrew, yes. That still doesn't change the fact that noncompliance with the national standards movement could have a negative impact on allocation of federal funds.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 10:54 AM
Whatever would you do if you didn't have the government to blame for everything, and I do mean everything?
I don't do that. That's your interpretation. I do blame bad policy by govt causing many of our modern problems. In fact not following the Constitution is the source of most of our problems. I believe in the original balanced center which should hold as the society grows and evolves. So that allows for some govt growth but only as a balanced act. That would maintain liberty—something you don't like and feel is extreme.

FTR, the extremes and exceses of government can become intrusive, burdensome, and even destructive. However, liberty and freedom that lead to plutocratic caste systems and anarchy are even worse. The key, in our republic, is avoiding excesses while seeking a balance that serves the greater good.
The extremists are in power now and were under Bush. In fact many of them have been in power since FDR. I am not an anarchist though. I believe in some govt...the amount per the Constitution. Not no govt. Get it right.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 10:54 AM
Jenson, nobody really cares.

CTTCS_WLR, clearly, people care.

In fact, I have been given 8 positive reps for that revelation, and I'm sure that more is on the way.

Oh I just checked. 22 now.

Remember these days? Oh, they were fun.

orange
03-12-2010, 10:55 AM
From the same article. It wouldn't automatically disqualify them, but it would be a pretty big hit on their score card.

You either want the Federal money or you don't.

You have no right to it with no strings.

NewChief
03-12-2010, 10:56 AM
You either want the Federal money or you don't.

You have no right to it with no strings.

Okay. I don't even think we have an argument here. If you want to go back to arguing McDonald's vs. Farmer's Markets... maybe we should do that over there. ;)

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 10:59 AM
CTTCS_WLR, clearly, people care.

In fact, I have been given 8 positive reps for that revelation, and I'm sure that more is on the way.

Oh I just checked. 22 now.

:BS: for your rep lies. Some things never change.

For the record, I don't care. Which part of that are you missing?

Your life is of no consequence to far more than your fabricated reps, consider this: If you have to lie to make yourself feel important you are just jerking your own chain and failing to achieve your point.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 10:59 AM
CTTCS_WLR, clearly, people care.

In fact, I have been given 8 positive reps for that revelation, and I'm sure that more is on the way.

Oh I just checked. 22 now.

We all know that most here rep based on agreement with political opinions.
Nothing to see here.

NewChief
03-12-2010, 11:00 AM
We all know that most here rep based on agreement with political opinions.
Nothing to see here.

It's actually a joke that he's been yanking CCTS's chain with for a while.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 11:00 AM
We all know that most here rep based on agreement with political opinions.
Nothing to see here.

He is crying out for acceptance and it's not working.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 11:01 AM
:BS: for your rep lies. Some things never change.

For the record, I don't care. Which part of that are you missing?

Your life is of no consequence to far more than your fabricated reps, consider this: If you have to lie to make yourself feel important you are just jerking your own chain and failing to achieve your point.

The fun part of it is that you think I'm serious.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 11:02 AM
It's actually a joke that he's been yanking CCTS's chain with for a while.

So sez you? I know he is a liar and has been for a very long time. Some things just don't change.

If you are going to refer to my old login please at least get the sequence of letters right. I changed to Norman because it's easier for dsylexics to sepll.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 11:02 AM
The fun part of it is that you think I'm serious.WRONG, you left serious in your last diaper change.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 11:02 AM
For the record, I don't care. Which part of that are you missing?

I know you care that there are conservative professors in public universities. I would care, if I were a shameless right wing promoter.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 11:04 AM
So sez you? I know he is a liar and has been for a very long time. Some things just don't change.

If you are going to refer to my old login please at least get the sequence of letters right. I changed to Norman because it's easier for dsylexics to sepll.

Is that why? Because when I asked you on your profile page, you immediately deleted my comment.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 11:12 AM
I don't do that. That's your interpretation. I do blame bad policy by govt causing many of our modern problems. In fact not following the Constitution is the source of most of our problems. I believe in the original balanced center which should hold as the society grows and evolves. So that allows for some govt growth but only as a balanced act. That would maintain liberty—something you don't like and feel is extreme.

The extremists are in power now and were under Bush. In fact many of them have been in power since FDR. I am not an anarchist though. I believe in some govt...the amount per the Constitution. Not no govt. Get it right.

What you call "extremists" are the folks who keep winning Constitutionally sanctioned elections in our country...over the past 60-70 years. The only government you and "conservative"/libertarian bretheren who share your dogmatic allegiance to what has become archaic and out-grown ideology....the only government that you seem interested in, is on that would preserve the wealth and riches for an elitist plutocratic high society, and shit on everyone else.

Don't you think you should win a few elections with your brand of extremism before calling others the extremitsts?

:hmmm:

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 11:12 AM
What you call "extremists" are the folks who keep winning Constitutionally sanctioned elections in our country...over the past 6--70 years, yes. The only government you and "conservative"/libertarian bretheren who share your dogmatic allegiance to what has become archaic and out-grown ideology....the only government that you seem interested in, is on that would preserve the wealth and riches for an elitist plutocratic high society, and shit on everyone else.

Don't you think you should win a few elections with your brand of extremism before calling others the extremitsts?

:hmmm:

I go by what works. Things aren't working. There's no arguing with results or lack of. That is all.
And Rand Paul is leading in Kentucky.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 12:02 PM
Is that why? Because when I asked you on your profile page, you immediately deleted my comment.

Your comments are thrown out like your dirty diapers because they are like you, full of shit and useless.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 12:04 PM
I know you care that there are conservative professors in public universities. I would care, if I were a shameless right wing promoter.

Again, you are wrong. I don't care. Your are still as full of shit as before. You have no life and have no experience in life. Shameful waste.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:02 PM
Your comments are thrown out like your dirty diapers because they are like you, full of shit and useless.

Again, you are wrong. I don't care. Your are still as full of shit as before. You have no life and have no experience in life. Shameful waste.

:(

Reaper16
03-12-2010, 01:10 PM
Seriously, how can there be two people (Tom and Will) who are identical posters? Its driving me crazy that they may indeed be two different people that share some lattice construct made of spite and spittle for a mind.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 01:30 PM
Seriously, how can there be two people (Tom and Will) who are identical posters? Its driving me crazy that they may indeed be two different people that share some lattice construct made of spite and spittle for a mind.

If you don't like my particular style or commentary just use the ignore funciton or don't respond. Jeez, get real sometime dude it might be eye opening.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:32 PM
If you don't like my particular style or commentary just use the ignore funciton or don't respond. Jeez, get real sometime dude it might be eye opening.

Do you like my particular style or commentary?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 01:33 PM
Do you like my particular style or commentary?

You are just a game. It usually takes one or two posts to get you spinning and asking stupid questions or making assinine remarks. Doesn't take much to make you spin.

If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

NewChief
03-12-2010, 01:34 PM
Seriously, how can there be two people (Tom and Will) who are identical posters? Its driving me crazy that they may indeed be two different people that share some lattice construct made of spite and spittle for a mind.

I second this.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:35 PM
You are just a game. It usually takes one or two posts to get you spinning and asking stupid questions or making assinine remarks. Doesn't take much to make you spin.

If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

So you do or you don't?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 01:39 PM
I second this.

Weak minds usually follow a leader. You just need to figure out who your leader is.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 01:39 PM
So you do or you don't?

If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:40 PM
If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

Do you like my commentary?

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:45 PM
Spring Break is here!

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 01:48 PM
Weak minds usually follow a leader. You just need to figure out who your leader is.

Are you a leader?

NewChief
03-12-2010, 01:57 PM
Weak minds usually follow a leader. You just need to figure out who your leader is.

I'm going to start collecting your little one liners and assemble them into a collection called naphorisms.

Reaper16
03-12-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm going to start collecting your little one liners and assemble them into a collection called naphorisms.
Cashorisms.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 02:26 PM
I'm going to start collecting your little one liners and assemble them into a collection called naphorisms.

Well good for you! I might think you wanted to make more of your life than to be nose deep in shit on a bulletin board.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 02:26 PM
Do you like my commentary?

If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 02:27 PM
Are you a leader?

Depends on the context of which you speak.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 02:28 PM
Cashorisms.

Wrong again, but do run with it, just watch out for that semi at the end of the block.

Reaper16
03-12-2010, 02:31 PM
Wrong again, but do run with it, just watch out for that semi at the end of the block.
I don't know what that means.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 02:50 PM
I don't know what that means.

That just goes with the rest of your posts, I guess what you don't know won't hurt us.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 03:33 PM
If you had a style it would be classified as pure shit.

That doesn't really answer my question at all.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 03:34 PM
Depends on the context of which you speak.

Give me a context.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 04:04 PM
That doesn't really answer my question at all.

So how many times do you have to see that same answer before you realize what I'm saying?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Give me a context.

It depends upon the context.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:16 PM
So how many times do you have to see that same answer before you realize what I'm saying?

There hasn't been an answer, yet.

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 04:17 PM
There hasn't been an answer, yet.

And you still dont' fucking get it do you?

Keep spinning, I'll check back later.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:18 PM
It depends upon the context.

Well, yeah, I got that.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:19 PM
And you still dont' ****ing get it do you?

Keep spinning, I'll check back later.

Keep spinning? What does that mean?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 04:32 PM
Keep spinning? What does that mean?

Does it matter? You are incapable of understanding most anything.

Now, go fuck yoursefl.

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:33 PM
Does it matter? You are incapable of understanding most anything.

Now, go **** yoursefl.

Why are you so angry?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 04:41 PM
Why are you so angry?

Not angry, just playing the game. Why are you so dense?

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:45 PM
Not angry, just playing the game. Why are you so dense?

What game?

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:47 PM
It depends upon the context.

What makes you more of a leader than NewPhin?

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:49 PM
If you don't like my particular style or commentary just use the ignore funciton or don't respond. Jeez, get real sometime dude it might be eye opening.

What if we don't like your particular style or commentary but we like making you look stupid?

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 04:56 PM
Is God so powerful that he can create a blue horse that is colored green?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 05:00 PM
Is God so powerful that he can create a blue horse that is colored green?

Are you so stupid as to mock God?

orange
03-12-2010, 05:08 PM
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE TOPIC:


Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general

Bad news for BucEyedPea and Taco John - TJ is OUT:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Yes, that's right. Thomas Jefferson is no longer a revolutionary; and no longer a part of strict constitutionalism, I guess. :doh!:

Jenson71
03-12-2010, 06:18 PM
Are you so stupid as to mock God?

My question doesn't mock God.

BucEyedPea
03-12-2010, 07:27 PM
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE TOPIC:


Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general

Bad news for BucEyedPea and Taco John - TJ is OUT:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Yes, that's right. Thomas Jefferson is no longer a revolutionary; and no longer a part of strict constitutionalism, I guess. :doh!:
Why is that bad news for me?

Norman Einstein
03-12-2010, 07:38 PM
:rolleyes:My question doesn't mock God.

orange
03-12-2010, 08:26 PM
Why is that bad news for me?

Oh, I don't know.


The Hamilton view that jenson is expousing is they can tax and spend on what they think provides for the general welfare. Jefferson and Madison said that the "tax and spend" power is restricted to what is an enumerated power. That restricts them. So the left like the Hamiltonian position which does prevail today since the 1930's revolution in the courts. That's pretty far off original intent though.


General welfare didn't mean to the Framers what it's taken to mean today.
Additionally, you have to look at the vernacular at that time to see intent too.

But general welfare was meant for things used by everyone nationally and only for spending on what was specified and enumerated in the Constitution. This is one of the biggest and worst legacies Hamilton left us here. He wanted an expansive reading a la his views that were rejected in the CC. Both Madison and Jefferson fought him on this including in writing clarifying what this phrase meant. It was not a grant of power. It was confined by other language elsewhere.

The thing is some states took a magnifying glass to the Constitution looking it over carefully for any infringement on the state's and what was the meaning. If it meant what Hamilton wanted, you can be certain it would never have been ratified and we'd still be a confederation.

Just 2 out of 127 BEP Jefferson references.

Another:

James Madison actually wrote the Consitution. Not a group of Fore Father.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. The DoI has no real legal meaning in the US.

Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution for this reason but he basically took notes from the Convention debates, the compromises of them all and crafted the final document.

They may not have agreed on every detail but they did on the basics. Of course there was a serpent in the room with them too.;)

According to Texas textbooks-to-be, Thomas was the serpent.

Oh, and one more:

Yes, yes that too. Especially that. He (Ron Paul) is today's Thomas Jefferson. :)

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 09:28 PM
Oh, I don't know.






Just 2 out of 127 BEP Jefferson references.

Another:



According to Texas textbooks-to-be, Thomas was the serpent.

Oh, and one more:



"But....but...but....."

Jefferson's become a damn NEO-CON...a COMMIE even!!!

Heh. LMAO

WoodDraw
03-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Texas has someone on their Board of Education who believes that the earth was created in six days? Really?

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2010, 09:49 PM
Texas has someone on their Board of Education who believes that the earth was created in six days? Really?

In the original Hebrew, the word for "day" translates as a standard period of time...

;)

WoodDraw
03-12-2010, 10:00 PM
In the original Hebrew, the word for "day" translates as a standard period of time...

;)

Too bad I didn't grow up in Texas or I would have known that. :D

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 05:24 AM
What if we don't like your particular style or commentary but we like making you look stupid?Your perception is really out of the box there kid. You might check your brain bucket to see if someone has been screwing with it, you surely haven't been using it.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 05:44 AM
Your perception is really out of the box there kid. You might check your brain bucket to see if someone has been screwing with it, you surely haven't been using it.

Wow, really? You're going to mock God like that? Good luck with hell.

Lou Scannon
03-13-2010, 10:16 AM
Are you so stupid as to mock God?

Are you talking about this loving God?

Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

Does God like you saying,"F**K" and "F***ING"? :cuss: He might bring a sword.

patteeu
03-13-2010, 10:34 AM
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE TOPIC:


Texas Approves Curriculum Revised by Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general

Bad news for BucEyedPea and Taco John - TJ is OUT:

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among the conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

Yes, that's right. Thomas Jefferson is no longer a revolutionary; and no longer a part of strict constitutionalism, I guess. :doh!:

I assume here that Jefferson is being removed only from one area of the recommended topics to be covered by history texts. Surely Jefferson won't be replaced by Thomas Aquinas in American History text books. Whether or not I could agree with Jefferson's removal would be dependent on what area of history we're talking about.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 10:46 AM
Wow, really? You're going to mock God like that? Good luck with hell.

I always thought your IQ was low, but it's tanked.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 10:49 AM
I always thought your IQ was low, but it's tanked.

Monks used to ask questions like "Is God so powerful he could create a blue horse that is colored green" all the time in the middle ages. It wasn't considered mocking God to these obviously religious, devoted monks. And that's because it isn't. So your comment was stupid.

PunkinDrublic
03-13-2010, 10:49 AM
Texas has someone on their Board of Education who believes that the earth was created in six days? Really?

Yup. The talibaptists are determine to keep this state near the bottom in education by creating their own right wing madrasas.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 10:50 AM
Are you talking about this loving God?

Matthew 10:34-35
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household.

Does God like you saying,"F**K" and "F***ING"? He might bring a sword.

I dont' say those words. Lou, are you another one of Jensons logins? Your point of view seems to be of the same mindset.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Now log out and back in as Jenson.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 10:51 AM
In the original Hebrew, the word for "day" translates as a standard period of time...

;)

In the context of Genesis, though? Why do you think the Jews have Sabbath? And how long is it?

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 10:52 AM
Texas has someone on their Board of Education who believes that the earth was created in six days? Really?

No, they're not crazy stupid. They believe that the earth was created in 6,000 years or something. So 10,000 years ago.

Lou Scannon
03-13-2010, 11:11 AM
I dont' say those words. Lou, are you another one of Jensons logins? Your point of view seems to be of the same mindset.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Now log out and back in as Jenson.

Norm, I have to refer you back a couple pages where you told someone to go **** him/her self.:cuss: Try as I might, I can't put anything in there but F**K. Never met Jenson. I just have a problem with hypocrites....hypacrits....hippocrits....****!STFU

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 11:20 AM
Judge not lest ye be judged.

Do you want to know how we know you are Tom Cash? Because after a short while in your new identity, you start repeating your old routine. Especially this "Judge not, lest ye be judged" business.

It's a bullshit pussy cop-out, which you excel in. Thanks, but I'll go ahead and judge.

patteeu
03-13-2010, 11:38 AM
Do you want to know how we know you are Tom Cash? Because after a short while in your new identity, you start repeating your old routine. Especially this "Judge not, lest ye be judged" business.

This is true.

orange
03-13-2010, 03:20 PM
I assume here that Jefferson is being removed only from one area of the recommended topics to be covered by history texts. Surely Jefferson won't be replaced by Thomas Aquinas in American History text books. Whether or not I could agree with Jefferson's removal would be dependent on what area of history we're talking about.

"The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum's world history standards on Enlightenment thinking, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”

From the Texas Freedom Network's live-blog of the board hearing:"

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.

9:56 – Here is what the Library of Congress says about Jefferson’s influence: “Recognized in Europe as the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson quickly became a focal point or lightning rod for revolutionaries in Europe and the Americas.” The Library of Congress notes, in particular, Jefferson’s influence on revolutionaries in France (including on the Declaration of the Rights of Man), other European nations, South America and Haiti.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 03:52 PM
Weird about the preservation of Voltaire. It leads me either to think their religious right-wingism is a bit reserved to some degree or they just don't know who he is.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 04:00 PM
Do you want to know how we know you are Cash? Because after a short while in your new identity, you start repeating your old routine. Especially this "Judge not, lest ye be judged" business.

It's a bullshit pussy cop-out, which you excel in. Thanks, but I'll go ahead and judge.

You and your alter ego were taking shots from the bible, what part of the scripture I quoted bothers you? Go ahead and believe that your mocking of God is a not an offense to him. The day will come when you are going to be required to explain your transgressions.

Again you are stooping to name calling and being less than you expect from everyone else.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 04:02 PM
Monks used to ask questions like "Is God so powerful he could create a blue horse that is colored green" all the time in the middle ages. It wasn't considered mocking God to these obviously religious, devoted monks. And that's because it isn't. So your comment was stupid.

Got some proof of your belief about the monks? I doubt that you do, but I'd really like you to back up your obviously false attempt to justify your continued lying.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 04:18 PM
You and your alter ego were taking shots from the bible, what part of the scripture I quoted bothers you?

Obviously, the part about us not being able to judge bothers me.

Go ahead and believe that your mocking of God is a not an offense to him. The day will come when you are going to be required to explain your transgressions.

I never mocked God.

And, ironically, you are implying a judgment of me with that last sentence. LMAO

Not that I mind, but it does show the hypocrisy that Lou was referring to.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 04:19 PM
Got some proof of your belief about the monks? I doubt that you do, but I'd really like you to back up your obviously false attempt to justify your continued lying.

Sure. It's called the Omnipotence paradox. St. Thomas Aquinas, for one, wrote about it in his Summa Theologica, Book 1, Question 25, Article 3: "Whether God is omnipotent?"

Reaper16
03-13-2010, 04:28 PM
Of course God can't make a blue horse that is colored green. That's not mocking God that's just stating logic.

NewChief
03-13-2010, 04:32 PM
It never gets old watching Cash get owned by Jenson in matters of theology.

BucEyedPea
03-13-2010, 05:19 PM
When did you become a peanut gallery member New Phin?

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 05:19 PM
Of course God can't make a blue horse that is colored green. That's not mocking God that's just stating logic.

How dare you.

But surely you would concede that God is so powerful he can make a square circle, right?

NewChief
03-13-2010, 05:26 PM
When did you become a peanut gallery member New Phin?

Do you disagree that Cash is getting owned or something?

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 05:28 PM
It never gets old watching Cash get owned by Jenson in matters of theology.

Impossible!

"The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, and his tongue talks of judgment" Psalms 37:30

NewChief
03-13-2010, 05:40 PM
And to honestly answer your question, BEP, I'm just really fucking sick of someone coming here on a false identity, lying his ass off repeatedly, and stirring shit up. It would be one thing if he just said, "Yup. I'm outed again. You got me. I'm Tom" and then went on to start another identity. But the asshole plays it for as long as he can, pretending to be someone else, insisting adamantly that he is, attempting to recruit people to his side, etc... And it's all a big fucking lie. On top of that is his bigoted self-righteousness, which is the real thing that rubs me the wrong way. For him to lecture other people about Christianity and such, when his very existence here is based on a falsehood just really annoys me.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 05:47 PM
And to honestly answer your question, BEP, I'm just really ****ing sick of someone coming here on a false identity, lying his ass off repeatedly, and stirring shit up. It would be one thing if he just said, "Yup. I'm outed again. You got me. I'm Tom" and then went on to start another identity. But the asshole plays it for as long as he can, pretending to be someone else, insisting adamantly that he is, attempting to recruit people to his side, etc... And it's all a big ****ing lie. On top of that is his bigoted self-righteousness, which is the real thing that rubs me the wrong way. For him to lecture other people about Christianity and such, when his very existence here is based on a falsehood just really annoys me.

Well said, NewPhin. But since you're one of my other identities, it's not too surprising that I would agree.

Lou Scannon
03-13-2010, 06:26 PM
You and your alter ego were taking shots from the bible, what part of the scripture I quoted bothers you? Go ahead and believe that your mocking of God is a not an offense to him. The day will come when you are going to be required to explain your transgressions.

Again you are stooping to name calling and being less than you expect from everyone else.

I dunno if I'm the alter ego. Nope, just checked. I can hear the good book being thumped from here. I hope your personal deity is working for you but you might want to clean up your language and get some anger management help. If your God (there are many) will show himself, I will be sitting in the pew behind you tomorrow morning.:harumph:

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 06:39 PM
I dunno if I'm the alter ego. Nope, just checked. I can hear the good book being thumped from here. I hope your personal deity is working for you but you might want to clean up your language and get some anger management help. If your God (there are many) will show himself, I will be sitting in the pew behind you tomorrow morning.:harumph:

Jenson, you are a hoot. multiple logins are not allowed.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 06:42 PM
It never gets old watching Cash get owned by Jenson in matters of theology.

ROFL, you and jenson teaming up? Must be one of those gay things.

Jenson couldn't own anything unless he was allowed to.

Here he is just another kid that hasn't read the bible nor has a grip on what religioin is all aobut.

I'm really happy that your little buddy is pulling your strings. Now you can go home homo.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 06:44 PM
And to honestly answer your question, BEP, I'm just really ****ing sick of someone coming here on a false identity, lying his ass off repeatedly, and stirring shit up. It would be one thing if he just said, "Yup. I'm outed again. You got me. I'm Tom" and then went on to start another identity. But the asshole plays it for as long as he can, pretending to be someone else, insisting adamantly that he is, attempting to recruit people to his side, etc... And it's all a big ****ing lie. On top of that is his bigoted self-righteousness, which is the real thing that rubs me the wrong way. For him to lecture other people about Christianity and such, when his very existence here is based on a falsehood just really annoys me.

What really amuses me is that you are totally stupid. I can be anyone you want me to be, not because it's true but because you have it planted in your little brain.

Good luck with your religion, I'm sure it's much better than mine.

Reaper16
03-13-2010, 06:44 PM
ROFL, you and jenson teaming up? Must be one of those gay things.

Jenson couldn't own anything unless he was allowed to.

Here he is just another kid that hasn't read the bible nor has a grip on what religioin is all aobut.

I'm really happy that your little buddy is pulling your strings. Now you can go home homo.
Tom Tom-Tom-Tom. Tom Tom-Tom-Tom TOM.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 06:57 PM
Tom Tom-Tom-Tom. Tom Tom-Tom-Tom TOM.

When did you take up the drums? Stick to being an asshole, suits you better.

NewChief
03-13-2010, 07:11 PM
ROFL, you and jenson teaming up? Must be one of those gay things.

Jenson couldn't own anything unless he was allowed to.

Here he is just another kid that hasn't read the bible nor has a grip on what religioin is all aobut.

I'm really happy that your little buddy is pulling your strings. Now you can go home homo.

Do you really think that Jenson hasn't read the bible? Are you that stupid? Seriously? The guy schools you in every theological "debate" (and debate is way too kind of a word) that you try to have with him. Are you really that clueless? Do you really have no idea of how people perceive you here in DC, both conservatives and liberals? Are you not aware that everyone considers you one big joke. Good grief.

As I've said repeatedly about you, Tom, I can't figure out if you're a genius troll making all your posts under some assumed alter ego or if you're actually sincere and just really, really stupid.

Norman Einstein
03-13-2010, 07:37 PM
Do you really think that Jenson hasn't read the bible? Are you that stupid? Seriously? The guy schools you in every theological "debate" (and debate is way too kind of a word) that you try to have with him. Are you really that clueless? Do you really have no idea of how people perceive you here in DC, both conservatives and liberals? Are you not aware that everyone considers you one big joke. Good grief.

As I've said repeatedly about you, Tom, I can't figure out if you're a genius troll making all your posts under some assumed alter ego or if you're actually sincere and just really, really stupid.

I'm just exactly like you. Live with that.

I have figured out that you are incredibly stupid, and the Catholic Church does not encourage their members to read the bible, maybe I should qualify that remark with what I was told by a Roman Catholic Priest: "You should not be opening the book, rather you should have someone that is infallable tell you what it means."

If jenson is reading the book then he is going against the Catholic church.

If you think jenson is right about everything he puts up here you are just as unschooled as you think I may be. Truth be known I've read the bible and know enough about it to state without any reservation, that jenson doesn't know what it says which puts him in the same place as every poster on this board, including those that have a certificate of ordination.

There is more to the bible than any man knows.

patteeu
03-13-2010, 07:45 PM
I'm just exactly like you. Live with that.

I have figured out that you are incredibly stupid, and the Catholic Church does not encourage their members to read the bible, maybe I should qualify that remark with what I was told by a Roman Catholic Priest: "You should not be opening the book, rather you should have someone that is infallable tell you what it means."

If jenson is reading the book then he is going against the Catholic church.

If you think jenson is right about everything he puts up here you are just as unschooled as you think I may be. Truth be known I've read the bible and know enough about it to state without any reservation, that jenson doesn't know what it says which puts him in the same place as every poster on this board, including those that have a certificate of ordination.

There is more to the bible than any man knows.

No Catholic priest ever told you that. At least make your stories believable, Tom.

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 08:13 PM
The blatantness of the entire process fascinates me. The entire agenda seems to surround putting their religious beliefs into the school books. Along with some conservative figures.

Why would any state ever think of having a system like this set up? Makes me happy I don't live in Texas. We have our own weirdness in Missouri from time to time, but I've always felt our Republicans and Democrats work reasonably well together.

stevieray
03-13-2010, 08:26 PM
The blatantness of the entire process fascinates me. The entire agenda seems to surround putting their religious beliefs into the school books.
first schoolbook was the zimmer handbook..they used bible verses to teach the alphabet.

Who do you think Harvard is named after? who do you think started the first Universities?

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 08:36 PM
first schoolbook was the zimmer handbook..they used bible verses to teach the alphabet.

Uhm, okay? In a history of learning the alphabet that would certainly be interesting.

Who do you think Harvard is named after? who do you think started the first Universities?

For a history of universities, that too would be worth talking about.

I don't mind religion being in text books. It's a big part of history, so leaving it out would seem rather hypocritical. I disagree more with rewriting select parts of textbooks to reflect a conservative board's view on history. A board with no formal study on history, no less.

I'm sitting here reading through transcripts, and the main topics so far are: American exceptionalism and religion. What an awesome history.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 08:38 PM
Here he is just another kid that hasn't read the bible nor has a grip on what religioin is all aobut.

I have too read the Bible. Well, not all of it. I'm missing a good deal of the Old Testament, but that's really long and it can get really boring in places.

Do I have a grip on what religion is all about? I don't even know how to begin to answer that question, much less have a grip on one (which you probably do, I'm sure).

But I do know this: the message of the Bible isn't that we shouldn't judge others and things justly. In fact, I would think it's more of the latter. I have an obligation to use my rational faculties to celebrate what is moral and correct and denounce what is immoral and wrong.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 08:44 PM
I have figured out that you are incredibly stupid, and the Catholic Church does not encourage their members to read the bible, maybe I should qualify that remark with what I was told by a Roman Catholic Priest: "You should not be opening the book, rather you should have someone that is infallable tell you what it means."

If jenson is reading the book then he is going against the Catholic church.

I am usually very entertained by what some people say about the Catholic Church for reasons like what you have just said. For people like you, ignorance is more than a state of mind, it's a way of life. And here your experience in life that you always praise yourself for is justly fitting.

There is more to the bible than any man knows.

I know more than you, though!!

Reaper16
03-13-2010, 08:46 PM
hai guys I don't like Catholicks cuz they worship all those saints and they worship Mary and they worship the Pope and they worship different from me

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 08:48 PM
first schoolbook was the zimmer handbook..they used bible verses to teach the alphabet.

You thinking of McGuffey Readers? I so want one of those.

who do you think started the first Universities?

Catholics, ftw!

stevieray
03-13-2010, 08:49 PM
Uhm, okay? In a history of learning the alphabet that would certainly be interesting.



For a history of universities, that too would be worth talking about.

I don't mind religion being in text books. It's a big part of history, so leaving it out would seem rather hypocritical. I disagree more with rewriting select parts of textbooks to reflect a conservative board's view on history. A board with no formal study on history, no less.

I'm sitting here reading through transcripts, and the main topics so far are: American exceptionalism and religion. What an awesome history.

your concern was religion in school, when it was there in the beginning, including the universities.

America is/was the exception to the rest of the world... a five thousand year leap (great read BTW)... that's why the verse from Leviticus is on the Liberty bell, it's why Franklin and Jefferson wanted the original seal to resemble the Jews exodus from Egypt. Washington, Samuel Adams, John adams, James Madison, Franklin, John Jay all bleived the that God's divinty was present in the founding of the country.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 08:53 PM
hai guys I don't like Catholicks cuz they worship all those saints and they worship Mary and they worship the Pope and they worship different from me

I talked to a born-again lady last summer who left the Church because she didn't understand why we worshiped Mary. I was thinking, "Lady, I wonder if you're paying better attention with the rock and roll bands?"

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 09:03 PM
your concern was religion in school, when it was there in the beginning, including the universities.

America is/was the exception to the rest of the world... a five thousand year leap (great read BTW)... that's why the verse from Leviticus is on the Liberty bell, it's why Franklin and Jefferson wanted the original seal to resemble the Jews exodus from Egypt. Washington, Samuel Adams, John adams, James Madison, Franklin, John Jay all bleived the that God's divinty was present in the founding of the country.

Well Harvard is also a private university, and they can teach whatever they please. So you're argument means shit. I also think our universities do a quality job of teaching about religion, history, and what not. They also don't deal with this type of craziness.

I went to Catholic grade school and high school. So I'm used to having religion in the class room. But I can't recall one instance where a history teacher stopped to reflect on the awesomeness that was the founders views of religion. Even in my religion classes, especially at the higher levels, the teachings reflected a philosophical look at religion, or a comparative study of world religions and their societies. Never "This is our country, we built it, and we're the best."

I'm by no means a historical expert on the foundation of the United States. I fall more along the lines of mildly interested. So I'm not going to get into a historical debate on the foundations of this and that. If it's history, and it's important teach it. My problem lies more with the clear agendas of the board members.

Here's just one example:

9:09 – This is just ignorant. Terri Leo wants to change a standard about holidays in major world religions (in a world cultures class for Grade 6) so that the holidays noted are mostly Christian and Jewish (and one Islamic) without any mentions of holidays from Hinduism and other holidays. One more time: this is a WORLD CULTURES class. Does this board realize how many people around the world are Hindus? Do they realize there are religions other than Christianity and Jewish? Of course they do. But some board members simply don’t care. Leo’s proposal goes down in flames, as it should. (Pat Hardy, who voted no, offers a clearly heard “Halleluja”!

Obviously defeated, but how did someone on the Board of EDUCATION ever even make that proposal. It should have been followed by uncontrollable laughter and a motion to recall him.

stevieray
03-13-2010, 09:09 PM
So you're argument means shit.


hardly.


p.s. don't you mean your? ;)

what are the two biggest holidays? december 25..birth of the Lord, and july 4.. the birth of the Nation, under God.

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 09:09 PM
hardly.


p.s. don't you mean your? ;)

Clever.

stevieray
03-13-2010, 09:13 PM
Clever.

...really?

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 09:15 PM
...really?

No, not at all.

stevieray
03-13-2010, 09:15 PM
No, not at all.

I agree...wasn't meant to be.

ClevelandBronco
03-13-2010, 10:07 PM
hai guys I don't like Catholicks cuz they worship all those saints and they worship Mary and they worship the Pope and they worship different from me

I talked to a born-again lady last summer who left the Church because she didn't understand why we worshiped Mary. I was thinking, "Lady, I wonder if you're paying better attention with the rock and roll bands?"

Forgive me, Jenson. I've read enough of your stuff to know that I have nothing to teach you on matters of theology, but you and Reaper have given me an opportunity to share on a simple subject, and I'm going to take it.

Mary's place in the Church is pretty easy to explain to us protestants if you:

1.) Draw parallels to the ark of the covenant. (We evangelicals seem to have a fascination with all things Jewish at least through the times of the Old Testament. For many of us we reacquire the fascination beginning with WWII.) Christ in the person of Jesus was God's new covenant with man. Jesus was God's word on earth — Emmanuel, God with us — and Mary was the ark that bore God's word, Jesus. She was the ark of the new covenant, as pure as the gold with which God directed the Jews to cover the original ark of his covenant with Moses and the Jewish nation. I'd say she enjoyed a special role in the story. Her heart must have been torn apart as violently as the curtains covering the Holy of Holies when Jesus died on the cross.

2.) Play the game on their home turf. Ask whether they ever ask others to pray for them. Ask why it's so different to ask Mary (or any other saints) to pray for us. The book of James tells us that, "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." I'd say that the saints have to be included in just about anyone's list of righteous men.

That's usually enough to quiet us for a while.

My apologies to those among us who are already familiar with this stuff.

Jenson71
03-13-2010, 11:00 PM
Another welcomed and nicely put post, ClevelandBronco. Number two is usually my standard explanation to the denouncers, but it's pretty hard to get some to realize that we don't worship these people, we just think they're awesome and are close to us and close to God.

Jenson71
03-14-2010, 12:52 PM
Is it just me or has T*m Cash's latest identity completely disappeared?

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 12:56 PM
Is it just me or has T*m Cash's latest identity completely disappeared?

Your friend, programmer if the research is correct, was banned long ago.

I however am still here and your perception is still flawed. There is just no reason to argue with you few that have shit for brains.

Reaper16
03-14-2010, 12:59 PM
Is it just me or has T*m Cash's latest identity completely disappeared?
He'll be back. He always comes back.

patteeu
03-14-2010, 01:42 PM
Is it just me or has T*m Cash's latest identity completely disappeared?

That's weird. Is that what universal ignore looks like or does he have a supernatural ability to withdraw all his posts?

Reaper16
03-14-2010, 01:53 PM
That's weird. Is that what universal ignore looks like or does he have a supernatural ability to withdraw all his posts?
Yeah, its universal iggy.

NewChief
03-14-2010, 03:20 PM
That one took a little longer to fully out. Of course, there were people who had him pegged on the first or second day of posting... but he managed to really stick to his guns on that identity and pretend to be someone else.

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 04:57 PM
He'll be back. He always comes back.

That's weird. Is that what universal ignore looks like or does he have a supernatural ability to withdraw all his posts?

Yeah, its universal iggy.

That one took a little longer to fully out. Of course, there were people who had him pegged on the first or second day of posting... but he managed to really stick to his guns on that identity and pretend to be someone else.

Larry(reap), Moe(patty), Curly(Pope Pius -Jenson) and Shemp(New Phin),

ROFL Your really think you have outed me as - ahem, shut your mouth -? You are all dumber than I ever thought possible. BUT, if you must feel accomplished then do so, there are so few things in life that mean as much to you.

ROFL

orange
03-14-2010, 05:04 PM
I really don't understand the attraction for these multiple-bannees to keep coming back.

Perhaps his next incarnation can discuss it.

NewChief
03-14-2010, 05:33 PM
I really don't understand the attraction for these multiple-bannees to keep coming back.

Perhaps his next incarnation can discuss it.

I know. Like I said, I don't know if he's a brilliant troll who is laughing at his own shtick, or if he's a sincere zealot who thinks that it's his mission from God to spread his political agenda here on CP.

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 07:24 PM
I know. Like I said, I don't know if he's a brilliant troll who is laughing at his own shtick, or if he's a sincere zealot who thinks that it's his mission from God to spread his political agenda here on CP.

If you are looking for someone with a mission from God you might talk to Pope Pius (Jenson). I've only responded to his assinine remarks using what limited knowledge I have of the Bible.

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 07:25 PM
I really don't understand the attraction for these multiple-bannees to keep coming back.

Perhaps his next incarnation can discuss it.

When the guy you are talking about6 comes back you can ask him. This is my first, but I'm sure you have been drinking the same joy juice that the other 4 have been.

Wyndex
03-14-2010, 07:53 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html#s73765

Brock
03-14-2010, 08:06 PM
Bye again, Tom.

Norman Einstein
03-14-2010, 09:05 PM
Bye again, Tom.

You believe that rubbish too? I thought more of your ability to stay away from the koolaid. :rolleyes:

KC native
03-15-2010, 02:30 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html#s73765

This is exactly why I'm moving out of this state at my earliest opportunity (hopefully fall of 2011). This shit is ludicrous. I'm not the hardcore history buff that some of the posters out here but jeebus h christ. Capitalism being replaced with free market enterprise system? Jefferson being eliminated in favor of Calvin? No mention of Hispanics that died at the Alamo? And these crazy fuckers wonder why Texas has some of the worst public schools in the country.

banyon
03-15-2010, 07:13 PM
Hmm, well his neg reps still show up.

Jenson71
03-15-2010, 07:53 PM
In one neg rep since the iggy, he told me to never forget the name "William Reynolds" LMAO

Norman Einstein
03-15-2010, 08:06 PM
In one neg rep since the iggy, he told me to never forget the name "William Reynolds" LMAO

What I find amusing is that Jenson and his close knit friends still don't get it.

ROFL

orange
03-15-2010, 08:15 PM
In one neg rep since the iggy, he told me to never forget the name "William Reynolds" LMAO

I got that one, too. I'm sad, now. I thought I was special, but it's just a mass-mailing. :deevee:

banyon
03-15-2010, 08:33 PM
In one neg rep since the iggy, he told me to never forget the name "William Reynolds" LMAO

Damn that even sounds make up.

What's the most generic name I can think of and maybe people will think its plausible?

Hey, I'm Brian Jones! Charles Johnson! etc.

orange
03-15-2010, 11:47 PM
Damn that even sounds make up.

What's the most generic name I can think of and maybe people will think its plausible?

Hey, I'm Brian Jones! Charles Johnson! etc.

I just had a stray thought... what if it wasn't random?

Who IS Will Reynolds?

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/118/m_62e0553404c54a2189b91c196a57b904.jpg

Answer: an Elvis impersonator.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.channel&vanity=willreynoldselvistributeartist

ROFL


This might be the cleverest thing ol' "Norm" ever posted.

|Zach|
03-15-2010, 11:49 PM
Bye again, Tom.

Guy has issues. He needs help.

Reaper16
03-16-2010, 12:38 AM
Who is <s>John Galt</s> <s>William Reynolds</s> Tom Ca$h?

The Mad Crapper
03-16-2010, 09:14 AM
How about people familiar with education not seeking to politicize the process?

ROFL

What a tool.

Norman Einstein
03-17-2010, 03:53 PM
ROFL

What a tool.

He is stuck in liberalism. Lost cause there.