Texas Board of Education Rewrites Our Textbooks
- Thread starter TheLastMohican
- Start date
I agree with just about all of this. The only difference is that I'm not on the fence about the change in favor of the term "constitutional republic." I think reinforcing the idea that we're a republic more so than a democracy is a more accurate description.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Most of this stuff actually seems rather reasonable to me.
However, I do have a problem with the god refrences. That should not be included as a lesson or idea. Those do not belong in there to be taught as the basis of things. Also the whole shushing of the religous freedom bit. Mind you, that wasn't the entire reason the country was founded, in fact it was only a small part.
At least they aren't trying to squelsh evolution.
However, I do have a problem with the god refrences. That should not be included as a lesson or idea. Those do not belong in there to be taught as the basis of things. Also the whole shushing of the religous freedom bit. Mind you, that wasn't the entire reason the country was founded, in fact it was only a small part.
At least they aren't trying to squelsh evolution.
Last edited:
I don't see adding any thing relgious as bad, religion kinda makes up a huge part of the worlds history, little lone the US, especially in US Politics.
Well, the colonialists didn't really come here for freedom of religion, rather they came here to practice their religion. Other religions didn't sit well with them, and they forced their religion on others (especially the natives). It wasn't really set up on religious freedom, and I agree with that change. It was freedom of religion, not really religious freedom.
Freedom of slavery, and the religion of genocide, probably..
[youtube]VSJmYnHdvsc[/youtube]
But hey, that's the law of nature. What? It isn't?!? Well, then, we ain't some pesky animals now, are we?
[youtube]VSJmYnHdvsc[/youtube]
But hey, that's the law of nature. What? It isn't?!? Well, then, we ain't some pesky animals now, are we?
I was pleasantly surprised, actually, to hear that the board intends to include references to the Declaration's "laws of nature and of nature's god" within the textbooks. In fact, I think any authentic and truthful review of the founding of America ought to include a review of our country's political philosophy. Trying to understand the American republic without knowing anything about its intended purpose is like trying to teach students about physics while ignoring the field's basic underlying laws.
Sieg heil... environmental studies show otherwise.
In the end it seems those who "should not have been born" are just those who wouldn't say that for anyone.
By the same argument, please review the native beliefs of the Indians, and run the country as it ought to be. Why do everyone of you worship some founding fathers so much? Can't you see it's all shallow propaganda, and in reality they have been nothing like what is narrated by historians?
Last edited:
I don't think Nik was saying that the country should be run a certain way just because it was originally set up that way, I think he was just saying that to fully understand how the system got to be what it is today and why it works the way it does you have to understand where it came from, and therefore why it was originally set up the way it was.
As for "worshipping the founding fathers" and it being "shallow propaganda (etc.)" I personally think that's a pretty significant exaggeration, and in response I would merely ask you to provide, in the appropriate way, evidence in support of your statements so that people can decide for themselves whether it's sufficient to convince them that your argument is valid.
I have no argument, so it's not to be validated. Feel free to believe in imaginary heroes forever. Every country has them and they are all fairy tales, because real people are not like that. Hope that clarifies that it is not about founding fathers; but equally applied to Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus or Till Eulenspiegel. And the other interesting aspect of the issue is how they are going to explain "natural law", when this term has been used so far in ways, that have changed a lot by now. Social darwinism is a complete fraud, and nothing to do with Darwin. Otherwise, I fully agree that it's very important to analyze history from the local perspective of time, not ours; good note.
Ah I think I see, it's the idealisation of historical figures that you're referring to, correct? From what you wrote (about it being all propaganda), I thought you were claiming that they hadn't made any contributions to political history that could be considered positive, which I believe would have been unfair.
I think historical figures tend to get idealised mostly because people want to believe in something bigger and better than themselves, the belief that somebody, somewhere, was everything you would like yourself to be can be a strong incentive to get you working towards that goal (and of course if correct that principle would apply to bigger things like how you'd like a nation or the world to be too).
Yes, well said. Of course, historical figures have made important and useful things, regardless of the exaggerated literature; but my point is also that even in that case we shouldn't just follow the model used by some great predecessors of ours, based on pride. Maybe what they used was good for their own time, and the situation has smoothly changed by now.
ENFP + Science = validation for Fi sensibilities.
If you actually believe this, you're proving the point that politicos intend to use the educational system to grow new crops of voters. This is a battle over how these kids might vote when they get older, and not about making sure they have the best education we can provide. Makes me sick, really.
Last edited:
I can see how the liberal press is upset about these egregious offenses! How dare the conservatives adopt their philosophy of thought policing!?
...or maybe, just maybe, because these people are conservative, this is the truth as they understand it?
In all instances? Or just in instances where a deeper description of the government is being discussed? Probably the latter. The wording here is pretty clear. The TBoE is adding counterpoint views, not abolishing the opposition.
They added the ability to discuss this topic? Unbelievable!
This makes no sense to me, as conservatives would be very inclined to keep this subject very alive. I'd like to see the specific lessons that where rejected. The word 'Rejected' also presumes that these lessons hadn't been added yet, but were proposed. Otherwise, they'd have used the word 'Removed', like below.
Again, I'd be willing to bet that these changes are situational and specific... but how dare these bastards use our educational system propaganda to interrupt our plan of growing an entire generation of liberal voters, and supplant it with their own!?
...or maybe, just maybe, because these people are conservative, this is the truth as they understand it?
Last edited:
The equation is imprecise, and not exactly what I needed for the discussion anyway. Consider it bad expression. However, the studies about the crucial importance of emotion to reasoning are fact. Thanks for the corrections by you and Satya, I will edit my post.
The fact that emotions are a strong factor in overall health is something I doubt few will refute. However, I think the correlation between emotion and reason is one that requires more intricate description. Any emotion can impede reason when it is too strong. Some emotions are much more helpful in decision making processes than others.
Otherwise, I was just teasing you about the ENFP approach to justifying emotional inclination.
You guys are amazing because of the way you think.Personally I have very little doubt that both of these things play a significant role in how our educational curricula are determined, just look at the kerfuffle over Section 28 in the UK back in the '80's. I consider that a pretty strong piece of evidence in the argument that Governments try to shape the thought processes of school students in a way that best suits that Political Party's particular needs and beliefs, rather than keeping their hands off and letting students make their own minds up.
And that's on top of the system itself being structured in such a way that kids are encouraged to develop things like obedience, docility, and dependence on authority figures and discouraged from developing attributes like critical thinking skills, self-reliance and all those other troublesome little things that bother Governments so.
(Edited the above somewhat).
Last edited:
If people cared about education, they wouldn't emphasize labels so much, in the first place. Symbols are for the symbol-minded. Meaning, call it democratic, call it republic, call it McDonalds, it's still just this:
http://www.tssphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/earth-north-america-space_900px.jpg
Meaning, call it democratic, call it republic, call it McDonalds, it's still just this:http://www.tssphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/earth-north-america-space_900px.jpg
Last edited: