Jump to content

Changes in Texas history textbooks


Recommended Posts

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_16029/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=UBvexafb

Does civil rights activist Cesar Chavez belong alongside Benjamin Franklin as an example of a model American citizen? Should Texas schoolchildren be required to identify Rush Limbaugh? How big a place does the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall - most famous for his victory in integrating the nation's schools - deserve in the history books?

The conservative-dominated Texas State Board of Education debates changes beginning Thursday to the social studies curriculum of the state's 4.6 million K-12 students, and both conservatives and liberals say the other is attempting to rewrite history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas education is pretty much of a joke because of these clowns.

Until the textbooks are changed to reflect the reality pictured below, our educational system should be considered a joke.

jesus-dinosaur1.jpg

Man, I get goosebumps looking at this reality. Wow, Jesus was da man!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the textbooks are changed to reflect the reality pictured below, our educational system should be considered a joke.

jesus-dinosaur1.jpg

Man, I get goosebumps looking at this reality. Wow, Jesus was da man!

Can you guys please give it a rest? It seems now that I can't go anywhere on HAIF without seeing or hearing this stuff, whether religious or political. Quite frankly I find it classless.

Wouldn't it be better to wait and see what the final revisions include/exclude before making such brash statements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please give it a rest? It seems now that I can't go anywhere on HAIF without seeing or hearing this stuff, whether religious or political. Quite frankly I find it classless.

Wouldn't it be better to wait and see what the final revisions include/exclude before making such brash statements?

As soon as the New Year comes around, I'll make a resolution to keep all discussion of religion in a church and all discussion of politics in the state house. Gotta stay classy, but that can wait till January. Until then, I won't wait until after the fact to voice my displeasure. I'll become reactive rather than proactive next year. No rush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as the New Year comes around, I'll make a resolution to keep all discussion of religion in a church and all discussion of politics in the state house. Gotta stay classy, but that can wait till January. Until then, I won't wait until after the fact to voice my displeasure. I'll become reactive rather than proactive next year. No rush.

I'm going to vote against your resolution. The reason HAIF has different forums and topics is so we can separate discussions. It would be classless to debate religion and education policy in a thread about Discovery Green or the HP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as the New Year comes around, I'll make a resolution to keep all discussion of religion in a church and all discussion of politics in the state house. Gotta stay classy, but that can wait till January. Until then, I won't wait until after the fact to voice my displeasure. I'll become reactive rather than proactive next year. No rush.

Funny... So the posted photo is your way of being proactive and getting your point across? That's very reasonable debate. Of course it's my fault for trying to get involved in this type of discussion on HAIF since most here are WAY biased against anything that has to do with GOD, and do nothing other than ridicule those of us who have differing views.

Cue the usual suspects that will no doubt lambast me. Would it help if I was pro Cesar Chavez?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny... So the posted photo is your way of being proactive and getting your point across? That's very reasonable debate. Of course it's my fault for trying to get involved in this type of discussion on HAIF since most here are WAY biased against anything that has to do with GOD, and do nothing other than ridicule those of us who have differing views.

Cue the usual suspects that will no doubt lambast me. Would it help if I was pro Cesar Chavez?

Interesting post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny... 1) So the posted photo is your way of being proactive and getting your point across? 2) That's very reasonable debate. 3) Of course it's my fault for trying to get involved in this type of discussion on HAIF since most here are WAY biased against anything that has to do with GOD, and do nothing other than ridicule those of us who have differing views.

4) Cue the usual suspects that will no doubt lambast me. 5) Would it help if I was pro Cesar Chavez?

I numbered your sentences so they can be addressed to reflect "reasonable debate."

1) No, it was my way of attempting to be funny. I think there was a point made though, and anyone familiar with the ridiculous depths the religious fundamentalists have gone to impose religion on education would realize that point isn't too outrageous. We encounter this debate far too often for those of us who'd like to keep Jesus out of schools to not make light of it or we'd otherwise be forced to deal with our weariness from fighting. For you to imply that this isn't an issue would be to indicate you didn't read the article. But again, it was mostly an attempt at humor. Lighten up. Don't take your God so seriously. I doubt s/he takes people very seriously.

2) There's no such thing as reasoned debate when talking with anyone who believes in something wholeheartedly without any evidence. That's the opposite of reason. You're allowed to use words like "reasonable debate" when you're willing to abide by the same standards you attempt to hold others to.

3) Don't play the victim card here. Your involvement in this discussion was in direct response to my post of the picture. You knew where your involvement was going to take you prior to typing anything. If anything, you've attacked my beliefs, or lack thereof, not the other way around. If you need a reminder, you called me "classless" for expressing my opinion on an open forum. Sound familiar?

4) If you openly criticize anything, you've opened yourself up to the same. I'm not moaning that you've attacked me. I've just offered counterpoints. Perhaps you could do the same. Otherwise, save the drama for your mama.

5) Perhaps, but it would be enough just to know you reached across the fence on one issue or another rather than that you swallowed the entire party rhetoric. In an attempt at equity, I'll have you know I support gun ownership even though I listen to KPFT. Let's teach the children that issues can't be judged in black-and-white and to think critically. How's that for an idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too expensive for 4 kids plus most of the more reasonably priced ones are church schools of various stripes so you get some of the same issues the state board of education tries to push.

wrong, Catholic schools do not have a problem reconciling their faith with science.....and they are pretty darn good about scholarships...and here is my personal favorite....

no armed guards or metal detectors

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong, Catholic schools do not have a problem reconciling their faith with science.....and they are pretty darn good about scholarships...and here is my personal favorite....

no armed guards or metal detectors

Are you sure about that because da Pope went to Africa and told them that condoms don't help with the AIDS problem in fact they make it worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrong, Catholic schools do not have a problem reconciling their faith with science.....and they are pretty darn good about scholarships...and here is my personal favorite....

no armed guards or metal detectors

While your personal favorite is also one of mine, I have a hard time believing a Catholic school is not going to teach things from a Catholic perspective and in accordance with Church teachings. Same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While your personal favorite is also one of mine, I have a hard time believing a Catholic school is not going to teach things from a Catholic perspective and in accordance with Church teachings. Same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. schools.

They do.

I send my kids to CS for various reasons. However not because of the religious nature of their teachings. I balance things out at home when I explain things in a scientific way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother was Catholic and my father was, I guess agnostic, and he was the one that wanted us to go to Catholic schools because of the "discipline". Most of the nuns were war hardened eastern European refugees and had the mindset "I survived Stalin and I survived Hitler and I'm not going to take any crap from some spoiled little kid BAM!!". My mother's concern was she was beaten for being left handed when she went to Catholic school and all of her children were left handed. The principal assured her they no longer did that and so there we were in Catholic school. Overall, not a bad experience, the education was first class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I numbered your sentences so they can be addressed to reflect "reasonable debate."

1) No, it was my way of attempting to be funny. I think there was a point made though, and anyone familiar with the ridiculous depths the religious fundamentalists have gone to impose religion on education would realize that point isn't too outrageous. We encounter this debate far too often for those of us who'd like to keep Jesus out of schools to not make light of it or we'd otherwise be forced to deal with our weariness from fighting. For you to imply that this isn't an issue would be to indicate you didn't read the article. But again, it was mostly an attempt at humor. Lighten up. Don't take your God so seriously. I doubt s/he takes people very seriously.

2) There's no such thing as reasoned debate when talking with anyone who believes in something wholeheartedly without any evidence. That's the opposite of reason. You're allowed to use words like "reasonable debate" when you're willing to abide by the same standards you attempt to hold others to.

3) Don't play the victim card here. Your involvement in this discussion was in direct response to my post of the picture. You knew where your involvement was going to take you prior to typing anything. If anything, you've attacked my beliefs, or lack thereof, not the other way around. If you need a reminder, you called me "classless" for expressing my opinion on an open forum. Sound familiar?

4) If you openly criticize anything, you've opened yourself up to the same. I'm not moaning that you've attacked me. I've just offered counterpoints. Perhaps you could do the same. Otherwise, save the drama for your mama.

5) Perhaps, but it would be enough just to know you reached across the fence on one issue or another rather than that you swallowed the entire party rhetoric. In an attempt at equity, I'll have you know I support gun ownership even though I listen to KPFT. Let's teach the children that issues can't be judged in black-and-white and to think critically. How's that for an idea?

So, now you are making HUGE assumptions about me and my beliefs in God, reaching across the isle, science, my ability to reason and then offerng them up as debate? Then you accuse me of playing a "victim card"? I suggest you re-read my first post. I was simply trying to keep the discussion civil versus jerk photos that do nothing other than encite anger from those who might offer some constructive debate from the conservative side. Unfortunately that is pretty much impossible here. Can't you understand that for those of us who might beleive in God that something like your photo would be insulting? Can't you understand that yuou can' lump all conservatives into one barrel? Geeez, I don't believe for a minute that God and science are mutually exclusive, and most conservatives I know don't either. Broadbrushed stereotypes are often wrong.

I would love to get into this, but decided a while ago not to get involved with this one sided, totally biased attitude, especially when that person has already made his mind up about who I am and/or what my belief system is. I've learned that debate in this context is pointless and I'll not do it. Of course you'll probably promote your victory here after reading my post, but that's ok. Have at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now you are making HUGE assumptions about me and my beliefs in God, reaching across the isle, science, my ability to reason and then offerng them up as debate? Then you accuse me of playing a "victim card"? I suggest you re-read my first post. I was simply trying to keep the discussion civil versus jerk photos that do nothing other than encite anger from those who might offer some constructive debate from the conservative side. Unfortunately that is pretty much impossible here. Can't you understand that for those of us who might beleive in God that something like your photo would be insulting? Can't you understand that yuou can' lump all conservatives into one barrel? Geeez, I don't believe for a minute that God and science are mutually exclusive, and most conservatives I know don't either. Broadbrushed stereotypes are often wrong.

I would love to get into this, but decided a while ago not to get involved with this one sided, totally biased attitude, especially when that person has already made his mind up about who I am and/or what my belief system is. I've learned that debate in this context is pointless and I'll not do it. Of course you'll probably promote your victory here after reading my post, but that's ok. Have at it.

Someone needs to throw you a pity party with as much as I'm apparently victimizing you. Can't you understand that those of us with a training in the sciences and a love of history get offended every time we have to revisit this tired textbook debate? I was making jokes because this insipid, seemingly annual debate incites anger from those of us who actually understand the principles underlying the sciences and actually read a history book or two from time to time. Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to guide blind-faith followers into a reasoned debate, so why try? But, in order not to make anymore brash assumptions about all the various colors in the conservative rainbow, and rather than you just calling me names like "classless" and "jerk," define where you stand on the issue.

By the way, I'm very glad you don't believe for a second that God and science are mutually exclusive, otherwise you'd have to believe that the glowing word box in front of you right now was sent from the heavens by God himself. Were computer technologies devised by scientists or by angels? We may never know, but just to be safe, in textbooks we should present arguments for both, you know... just to be fair, because you know... both arguments are valid. Does that sound ridiculous to you? Well, that's the way creationism sounds to me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Someone needs to throw you a pity party with as much as I'm apparently victimizing you. Can't you understand that those of us with a training in the sciences and a love of history get offended every time we have to revisit this tired textbook debate? I was making jokes because this insipid, seemingly annual debate incites anger from those of us who actually understand the principles underlying the sciences and actually read a history book or two from time to time. Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to guide blind-faith followers into a reasoned debate, so why try? But, in order not to make anymore brash assumptions about all the various colors in the conservative rainbow, and rather than you just calling me names like "classless" and "jerk," define where you stand on the issue.

By the way, I'm very glad you don't believe for a second that God and science are mutually exclusive, otherwise you'd have to believe that the glowing word box in front of you right now was sent from the heavens by God himself. Were computer technologies devised by scientists or by angels? We may never know, but just to be safe, in textbooks we should present arguments for both, you know... just to be fair, because you know... both arguments are valid. Does that sound ridiculous to you? Well, that's the way creationism sounds to me.

Or blind faith in science.

This type of argument always pops up because, as you said, some people are just closed-minded. Although this title has often been attached to believers in God and a greater power out there, I think the other side can be called closed-minded too, sometimes, you know what I mean? :angry2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or blind faith in science.

This type of argument always pops up because, as you said, some people are just closed-minded. Although this title has often been attached to believers in God and a greater power out there, I think the other side can be called closed-minded too, sometimes, you know what I mean? :angry2:

You are missing the point... it is not blind faith in science. It is an educated understanding of a scientific theory as well as the vast body of evidence that backs it up. You don't get a Ph.D. for throwing up your hands and crying "I believe! I believe!"

I'm very sorry that so many people had such a crappy education that they don't understand the principles of science well enough to know why creationism doesn't belong in the science classroom. But I don't find that a compelling reason to continue to poorly educate students. It's time to listen the men and women with the Ph.D.s in science when we're trying to establish the science curriculum.

Edited by sarahiki
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Or blind faith in science.

This type of argument always pops up because, as you said, some people are just closed-minded. Although this title has often been attached to believers in God and a greater power out there, I think the other side can be called closed-minded too, sometimes, you know what I mean? :angry2:

Not really, no, I don't know what you mean. Science says, "Show me the evidence, testable and verifiable, and then I'll believe it." Faith says, "I don't need evidence to believe something because I feel it's true." I can assure you, if irrefutable proof of God existed, scientists would believe in God. Unfortunately, it doesn't. There's not a shred of evidence for that. And, before you call me a godless commie, know that I know both sides of the argument. I was raised a strict Southern Baptist. It's kinda sorta silly to call someone close-minded for not considering your, er... "evidence" when you won't consider theirs, especially if that person has indeed given your "evidence" heavy consideration. I can assure you, it wasn't easy to take the leap away from faith. There's no safety net in this circus. That said, I have no intention of forcing other people to share my non-beliefs. Not everyone is comfortable with the uncertainty of a Godless universe, and that's ok. I wouldn't expect anyone to express belief in what they don't truly believe. But, I expect the same consideration. I won't force my non-belief on you if you don't force your belief on me, you know what I mean?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am insulted at your dismissal of religion as "mysticism", I will say this: I say you're wrong, and you'll say that I'm wrong. For now, that's leave it at that.

Oh, and don't jump on that as "I don't think you're wrong, I KNOW you're wrong!" That's just classless. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am insulted at your dismissal of religion as "mysticism", I will say this: I say you're wrong, and you'll say that I'm wrong. For now, that's leave it at that.

Oh, and don't jump on that as "I don't think you're wrong, I KNOW you're wrong!" That's just classless. <_<

These arguments are proof that evolution is optional for some individuals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I am insulted at your dismissal of religion as "mysticism", I will say this: I say you're wrong, and you'll say that I'm wrong. For now, that's leave it at that.

Oh, and don't jump on that as "I don't think you're wrong, I KNOW you're wrong!" That's just classless. <_<

Suppose you were raised in rural India, taught that a different book and prophet were supreme. Would you still be the religion you are now? [Probably not] And doesn't that mean that you arrived at your religious decision because of conditional factors rather than a legitimate logical path?

owned

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suppose you were raised in rural India, taught that a different book and prophet were supreme. Would you still be the religion you are now? [Probably not] And doesn't that mean that you arrived at your religious decision because of conditional factors rather than a legitimate logical path?

owned

I could ask you the same thing, different scenario.

Although it was "conditional factors" at first, it later becomes a legitimate logical path. I still stand by my previous post, no matter what you say or how many +1s you get.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could ask you the same thing, different scenario.

Although it was "conditional factors" at first, it later becomes a legitimate logical path. I still stand by my previous post, no matter what you say or how many +1s you get.

Not really. Even someone raised in a completely secular environment would be capable of choosing from an array of faiths if that is what he or she so chose. But, given an upbringing without God but with a solid understanding of science, it's unlikely many would revert to what couldn't be perceived as anything but silly hocus-pocus. On the other hand, swaying from religion to a secular world is as easy as reading a book or two that aren't the Bible or anything written by Glenn Beck. Let me put it this way, do you find the idea of Zeus and Aphrodite and Hera to be preposterous and no more than anachronistic mythologism? If so, what logic did you use to come to that conclusion? Then, apply that logic one step further, remove one more god and then you begin to understand what non-believers understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Even someone raised in a completely secular environment would be capable of choosing from an array of faiths if that is what he or she so chose. But, given an upbringing without God but with a solid understanding of science, it's unlikely many would revert to what couldn't be perceived as anything but silly hocus-pocus.

You bring up something interesting that I have always wondered about but never could find anyone to ask - is there anyone raised without religion that is now religious, and how did that come about?

Being someone raised without religion I could never imagine being religious but I am very curious about those who are..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was raised Baptist and then decided it had no logical basis.

Baptists are the most seemingly "right-wing" of the Christian spectrum, I'll concede to that.

@all:

There's not much I can really say to you. I feel sorry for you...I really do. That's not in a condescending way, that's in a real way. I mean, I can't imagine a world where there is no greater purpose in life, no higher being. Tell me, what do you think is your purpose in being here, on Earth?

Just food for thought.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptists are the most seemingly "right-wing" of the Christian spectrum, I'll concede to that.

@all:

There's not much I can really say to you. I feel sorry for you...I really do. That's not in a condescending way, that's in a real way. I mean, I can't imagine a world where there is no greater purpose in life, no higher being. Tell me, what do you think is your purpose in being here, on Earth?

Just food for thought.

"To be the eyes and ears and conscience of the Creator of the Universe, you fool" -K. Vonnegut

Even if the creator isn't some sky ghost, and even if it doesn't exist at all, our mere existence gives us insight into the greater depths of what simply is. We may occupy only a tiny fraction of this place, but we also may be alone to witness it. Think about that for a bit. If we're the only intelligent life in the universe, a very real probability, we are in an incredibly unique position to be the shamen, scribes, moralists and ethicists for a body so vast as to be incomprehensible. And I don't know about you, but I find that mind-bogglingly cool.

And like you, I feel sorry for anyone who attaches purpose to something as intransitive as a belief or an ism. Like you, it's not intended as condescension, I just really wish everyone could feel the same awe I do when considering the universe beyond the limited sphere we call home. I imagine it's probably close to your feelings when you consider God, but imagine the same thing, the randomness of it all and the absolute calamity that is the universe, and it becomes even more amazing when you think, "You know, the fact it is all so random and improbable makes it that much more precious."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I thought this was about history textbooks. Time to ignore.

It is. Sorta.

Unfortunately, the subject of textbook approval in this state has become synonymous with political grandstanding by those who seek to force their beliefs on those who just wish to learn. Invariably, the debate turns to who's pushing what, and there are a select few, often the loudest few, who insist no one has the right to learn history or science with accuracy because that accuracy offends their personal belief system. That loudest minority without fail will equate their mythology with science in order to lend their argument some legitimacy, and they'll become completely obstinate in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Then, certain people, like a number of HAIFers here, will make futile attempt after futile attempt to educate that loud, obstinate minority in an effort to find some middle ground, some value for education, something. But, it's usually to no avail as that loud minority's obstinancy knows no bounds. We're probably as effective as hamsters running on a wheel, but so long as there's a group of influential people who will attempt to turn our schools into a church or into a Republican party propaganda zone, there will be others using logic and reason to debate them. Unfortunately, you stepped into the middle of this annoying but necessary process.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

While your personal favorite is also one of mine, I have a hard time believing a Catholic school is not going to teach things from a Catholic perspective and in accordance with Church teachings. Same for Baptist, Methodist, etc. schools.

The Catholic school I went to was very similar to the public schools I went to. The school specifically had the sciences taught by lay people. The only time we had clergy teaching was for theology class. Other than that, and Latin, it wasn't much different than a public school, except that it had a 99.9% graduation rate and 99% of its students were accepted to their first college choice.

A lot of people who have never been to a Catholic school make a lot of assumptions about what it's like based on things they heard, or saw satirized in a cartoon, that happened in the 1940's.

What the average HAIFer doesn't know about Catholicism could fill a cathedral.

Since this thread is way off topic and no one seems interested in discussing the root, it is now closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...