Texans re-writing history 202 replies

Please wait...

Huffardo

Arrrr!

48,770 XP

29th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,632 Posts

0 Threads

#181 9 years ago

Stryker500;5326465You people have no idea what the world "fundamentalist" means if you are calling the entire state of Texas Christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalists chop off your head or line you up against a wall and shoot you. They don't sit in committee meetings to discuss the wording to be used in a high school textbook![/QUOTE] Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible to be the literal truth; they may also be violent, but that is not a requirement. Some fundamentalists either don't want to die or are actually smart enough to realize that sitting in committees helps their agenda a lot more than chopping of heads and ending up in the chair.

Stryker500;5326465That said this is a natural backlash against attempts by the left to do the very same thing to the educational system, yet that often gets overlooked. Is Howard Zinn somehow telling the whole truth when a history book's focusing on certain elements more is somehow an evil plot? Before you whine about "right-wing" propaganda take a look at who supposedly "enlightened" you to your current viewpoint.[/QUOTE] So this Howard Zinn wrote leftist school books? What parts of them are false?

I believe that only people who know the subject they are writing about should be allowed to write school books, and at a quick glance Howard Zinn sure seems a lot more qualified than a bunch of village idiots.

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5326465]A "nation under God" does not make a theocracy nor do any of the things the far-left kooks claim to.

Nah, but it certainly makes any claims of separation between church and state look very hollow.

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5326465]And in response to the Texas bashing, I am not even from that state, but frankly I am damn glad they are part of our Union and maybe you would be too if you ever got the thoughts of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out of your head.

Why should anyone be glad that they are lying to children and thus limiting their chances to make informed decisions and continue to university rather than giving them an education comparable to the rest of the nation?




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#182 9 years ago
Stryker500;5326465You people have no idea what the world "fundamentalist" means if you are calling the entire state of Texas Christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalists chop off your head or line you up against a wall and shoot you. They don't sit in committee meetings to discuss the wording to be used in a high school textbook!

You'll note that I didn't say the "entire state of Texas" were Christian fundamentalists.

That said this is a natural backlash against attempts by the left to do the very same thing to the educational system, yet that often gets overlooked. Is Howard Zinn somehow telling the whole truth when a history book's focusing on certain elements more is somehow an evil plot? Before you whine about "right-wing" propaganda take a look at who supposedly "enlightened" you to your current viewpoint.

So you admit that it is propaganda, though I'm still not clear on whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing. Name the left-wing propaganda in the current textbooks, and we'll stack it up against the enormous list of right-wing propaganda that was just voted in.

Say what you want about what the founding father's planned

I could, but the only thing relevant to this discussion would be that the founding fathers did not intend for America to be a Christian nation "Under God" (or they would have said so :)), or for American schoolchildren to be fooled into thinking otherwise. Here's an idea - instead of going on the defensive and spewing a lot of stuff that has no real relevance to the subject at hand (the changes to high-school textbooks and the obvious agenda behind them), why not address that subject? Is it because you know as well as I do that this historical revisionism and bias is entirely indefensible?




Adrian Tepes Forum Mod

King Jellyfish

262,355 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,785 Posts

1,760 Threads

#183 9 years ago

Well, at first I didn't read the changes, I just read replies, but now, after having read the changes fully, I can honestly say that it's a pile of shit.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#184 9 years ago

Stryker500;5326465You people have no idea what the world "fundamentalist" means if you are calling the entire state of Texas Christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalists chop off your head or line you up against a wall and shoot you. They don't sit in committee meetings to discuss the wording to be used in a high school textbook![/QUOTE]

Well in the Western world they are the closest.

Stryker500;5326465 That said this is a natural backlash against attempts by the left to do the very same thing to the educational system, yet that often gets overlooked. Is Howard Zinn somehow telling the whole truth when a history book's focusing on certain elements more is somehow an evil plot? Before you whine about "right-wing" propaganda take a look at who supposedly "enlightened" you to your current viewpoint.

A "nation under God" does not make a theocracy nor do any of the things the far-left kooks claim to.

Say what you want about what the founding father's planned, but there certainly weren't picturing some ACLU lawyers suing over a "day of prayer" or public Christmas display. The concept of "separation of church and state" wasn't intended to create what some of you evidently want.

A "nation under God" didn't exist anywhere on US documents, money or anything until the early-mid 1800'a when we were expanding west. The Constitution or Declaration I forgot which, doesn't say God, it says a Nature's God meaning its open to all religions, if Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli doesn't say it blantly enough then I don't know what will.

As for a "day of prayer" you do realized the Bible says you will not pray in public right? Not saying you shouldn't, just saying it shows how many Christians don't actually read the Bible.

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5326465] And in response to the Texas bashing, I am not even from that state, but frankly I am damn glad they are part of our Union and maybe you would be too if you ever got the thoughts of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out of your head.

It would be easier if they didn't try to make out Eugenics as ethnic cleansing and try everything to dirty up the good Liberal politicians like Franklin Roosevelt and clean up the very dirty Conservative politicians like Joe McCarthy.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#185 9 years ago
TheDarkInvader;5326518You'll note that I didn't say the "entire state of Texas" were Christian fundamentalists.So you admit that it is propaganda, though I'm still not clear on whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing.

No I don't believe it is propaganda because any part of history related to politics has multiple sides too it. And yes I do think some backlash against the usual trend is in order.

Name the left-wing propaganda in the current textbooks, and we'll stack it up against the enormous list of right-wing propaganda that was just voted in.

So you've never been blessed by a Marxist professor who expects a paper about all of the ills of capitalism? Or anything along those lines? Howard Zinn and a few other authors may be known for their leftist political viewpoint, but I hardly think a name behind the book justifies the use of his book as the focus of a curriculum for example.

I could, but the only thing relevant to this discussion would be that the founding fathers did not intend for America to be a Christian nation "Under God" (or they would have said so :)), or for American schoolchildren to be fooled into thinking otherwise.

They intended it to be a nation of the people and the people as a whole were primarily Christians. They had no problem publicly mentioning God or declaring a day of prayer, etc. At it's core the idea was to simply prevent a state church (Church of England) or somebody like the Vatican having power over the country. Jefferson primary concern was protecting churches from government interference, not creating a state of government where "freedom of religion" means crushing expressions of Christianity. When one whines about "In God we Trust" or similar phrases, they have clearly taken the concept of a secular government far beyond a rational level.

Here's an idea - instead of going on the defensive and spewing a lot of stuff that has no real relevance to the subject at hand (the changes to high-school textbooks and the obvious agenda behind them), why not address that subject? Is it because you know as well as I do that this historical revisionism and bias is entirely indefensible?

And here is an idea for you. Justify the left doing the very same thing through means of enforcing "political correctness" and "diversity." Or are you drinking so much of the kool-aid where you honestly believe that isn't the case?

A "nation under God" didn't exist anywhere on US documents, money or anything until the early-mid 1800'a when we were expanding west. The Constitution2_bing.gif or Declaration I forgot which, doesn't say God, it says a Nature's God meaning its open to all religions, if Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli doesn't say it blantly enough then I don't know what will. As for a "day of prayer" you do realized the Bible says you will not pray in public right? Not saying you shouldn't, just saying it shows how many Christians don't actually read the Bible.

I never implied a "nation under God" was an official statement on the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence does mention our creator clearly. What is your argument here, that the word God not being in the constitution means we should be as "secular" as the Soviet Union? And a treaty designed to keep a bunch of pirates from causing more trouble after the Marines kicked their ass hardly has a definite say on anything.

Don't claim to know my religious beliefs. And who is even saying that God in such statements necessarily has to be the Christian God? if I wanted clarification about prayer, I know many whose word I would take over yours, no offense intended.

It would be easier if they didn't try to make out Eugenics as ethnic cleansing and try everything to dirty up the good Liberal politicians like Franklin Roosevelt and clean up the very dirty Conservative politicians like Joe McCarthy.

I support eugenics to an extent but I think it is definitely worth noting when the science has been misused as a justification by all sorts of madmen. I have respect for FDR but like anybody, the man had his flaw's and discussing Social Security and it's future is certainly something worth doing. As far as McCarthy goes, it sounds like they are only trying to point out that there was indeed Soviet spies and infiltration in this country, and that all wasn't just invented by McCarthy. There are no doubt PRC infiltrators these days where they shouldn't be either.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#186 9 years ago
Stryker500;5326782No I don't believe it is propaganda because any part of history related to politics has multiple sides too it.

They aren't presenting arguments from both sides in an objective manner, hence the problem. Maybe you should read what the actual revisions are.

So you've never been blessed by a Marxist professor who expects a paper about all of the ills of capitalism? Or anything along those lines? Howard Zinn and a few other authors may be known for their leftist political viewpoint, but I hardly think a name behind the book justifies the use of his book as the focus of a curriculum for example.

We're talking about changes to high school textbooks mandated by the Texas State Board of Education, not biased college professors. You said the left were trying to do "the very same thing", so give us some examples. Not that it would make this case of historical revisionism any more justified.

They intended it to be a nation of the people and the people as a whole were primarily Christians. They had no problem publicly mentioning God or declaring a day of prayer, etc. At it's core the idea was to simply prevent a state church (Church of England) or somebody like the Vatican having power over the country.

You have religious politicians forcing changes to high school textbooks so that they promote Christian rightist ideology. Texas might as well have a state church.

When one whines about "In God we Trust" or similar phrases, they have clearly taken the concept of a secular government far beyond a rational level.

There's nothing irrational about stating that federal endorsement of religion, and a legal requirement to print religious slogans on money, is the exact opposite of secularism. A nation can be either a secular nation, or a Christian nation, not both. If you expect secular individuals not to oppose a slogan conceived as a rejection of "the ignonimity of heathenism", you're out of luck.

And here is an idea for you. Justify the left doing the very same thing through means of enforcing "political correctness" and "diversity." Or are you drinking so much of the kool-aid where you honestly believe that isn't the case?

Give me examples of the left doing the same thing, like I asked, and I might take this seriously.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#187 9 years ago
TheDarkInvader;5326814They aren't presenting arguments from both sides in an objective manner, hence the problem. Maybe you should read what the actual revisions are.We're talking about changes to high school textbooks mandated by the Texas State Board of Education, not biased college professors.

It seems to me that arguments are presented from both sides more than previously.

You said the left were trying to do "the very same thing", so give us some examples. Not that it would make this case of historical revisionism any more justified.You have religious politicians forcing changes to high school textbooks so that they promote Christian rightist ideology. Texas might as well have a state church.There's nothing irrational about stating that federal endorsement of religion, and a legal requirement to print religious slogans on money, is the exact opposite of secularism. A nation can be either a secular nation, or a Christian nation, not both.

If you cannot see the examples in a public school than are you really going to believe me? Regardless of it is some presentation about "sensitivity" or kids being told to take off an American flag t-shirt, examples of the left trying to indoctrinate are all around you. All I see on the front page is nothing but the opinion from some blog about what the changes are designed to do. Making the argument that changed wording and increased/decreased focused on certain individuals concepts is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy. Hardly a convincing argument. Secularism is meerly keeping state and church affairs seperate! Turkey is clearly an Islamic nation, but they have a secular government. You are trying to turn it into some sort of religion onto itself!

If you expect secular individuals not to oppose a slogan conceived as a rejection of "the ignonimity of heathenism", you're out of luck.Give me examples of the left doing the same thing, like I asked, and I might take this seriously.

Good phrase, but I already don't take the liberal hivemind here seriously.




Emperor Benedictine

You can't fire me, I quit

55 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,437 Posts

0 Threads

#188 9 years ago
Stryker500;5326823It seems to me that arguments are presented from both sides more than previously.

If I'm to believe that, then you will need to indicate exactly what liberal propaganda is in these same textbooks. By the way - it doesn't count if it has been removed as part of these revisions, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.

If you cannot see the examples in a public school than are you really going to believe me?

Your statement assumes I should know anything about American high school textbooks. I don't. I doubt what you are saying because it has been my experience, in discussions such as this, that accusations of left-wing bias in American institutions are generally little more than a smokescreen or an ad hoc justification for whatever the religious right are getting up to at the time.

Regardless of it is some presentation about "sensitivity" or kids being told to take off an American flag t-shirt, examples of the left trying to indoctrinate are all around you.

Everything other than the thing we are discussing right now, propaganda in high school textbooks. You cannot provide evidence to support your claims. Your arguments would appear to stem from personal bias and nothing more.

All I see on the front page is nothing but the opinion from some blog about what the changes are designed to do. Making the argument that changed wording and increased/decreased focused on certain individuals concepts is part of some vast right-wing conspiracy. Hardly a convincing argument.

It doesn't really have to be. If the Texas State Board of Education is passing a law that will downplay racial issues in the United States in favour of expounding on the failings of "godless communism", an unbiased observer can only reach the conclusion that there is a political agenda behind it. Although not a "vast conspiracy", that's just a straw man.

Secularism is meerly keeping state and church affairs seperate! Turkey is clearly an Islamic nation, but they have a secular government. You are trying to turn it into some sort of religion onto itself!

As far as I'm aware, Turkey does not have a national motto that endorses monotheistic religion. A secular nation does not conflate national identity with belief in God. America does.

Good phrase, but I already don't take the liberal hivemind here seriously.

Don't know what that's in reference to, but buzzwords like "liberal hivemind" don't make up for your inability to justify your overstated arguments with fact.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#189 9 years ago

Stryker500;5326782 I never implied a "nation under God" was an official statement on the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence does mention our creator clearly. What is your argument here, that the word God not being in the constitution means we should be as "secular" as the Soviet Union? And a treaty designed to keep a bunch of pirates from causing more trouble after the Marines kicked their ass hardly has a definite say on anything. [/QUOTE]

So begin secular means we purge religious activity? Again, the Declaration of Independence says "Nature's god" it never said "the Christian God".

As for the treaty, it states QUITE clearly "This nation is in no way based on the Christian religion" word per word.

Stryker500;5326782

Don't claim to know my religious beliefs. And who is even saying that God in such statements necessarily has to be the Christian God? if I wanted clarification about prayer, I know many whose word I would take over yours, no offense intended. [/QUOTE]

Alrighty then. Mathew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5326782] I support eugenics to an extent but I think it is definitely worth noting when the science has been misused as a justification by all sorts of madmen. I have respect for FDR but like anybody, the man had his flaw's and discussing Social Security and it's future is certainly something worth doing.

But to claim its ethnic cleansing is far too far fetched.

[QUOTE=Stryker500;5326782] As far as McCarthy goes, it sounds like they are only trying to point out that there was indeed Soviet spies and infiltration in this country, and that all wasn't just invented by McCarthy. There are no doubt PRC infiltrators these days where they shouldn't be either.

Yes there were, that should be obvious, but McCarthy took it a step further something akin to the witch hunts, his logic went into the lines of "If I ask you if your a Communist and you say yes, then you're a Communist, if you say no you're a Communist, if someone was talking about workers rights, ask him if he's a Communist and do the procedure above" these people would be black listed from having jobs and would have their lives ruined some even stuck in jail for being "Communists". This is like the witch hunts except a bit less bloodier.




Stryker500

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

26th January 2009

0 Uploads

225 Posts

0 Threads

#190 9 years ago

Warforger;5326915So begin secular means we purge religious activity? Again, the Declaration of Independence says "Nature's god" it never said "the Christian God". [/quote]

No and I never implied having a secular government means that. In fact protecting freedom to express one's religion was the main goal here.

Alrighty then. Mathew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I believed I clearly stated I wouldn't be asking here for help interpreting the bible. Hell, an acquaintance of mine probably knows more than the Pope himself, I'd ask him.

But to claim its ethnic cleansing is far too far fetched.

Yet have any of us seen the actual wording of the textbook to confirm such a statement?

Yes there were, that should be obvious, but McCarthy took it a step further something akin to the witch hunts, his logic went into the lines of "If I ask you if your a Communist and you say yes, then you're a Communist, if you say no you're a Communist, if someone was talking about workers rights, ask him if he's a Communist and do the procedure above" these people would be black listed from having jobs and would have their lives ruined some even stuck in jail for being "Communists". This is like the witch hunts except a bit less bloodier.

McCarthy was a man like any other, he had his flaws but he wasn't impaling heads outside of congress. Point out how he took things too far no doubt, but the man shouldn't be demonized, especially when men like Ted Kennedy are treated like saints.

[QUOTE=TheDarkInvader;5326861]If I'm to believe that, then you will need to indicate exactly what liberal propaganda is in these same textbooks. By the way - it doesn't count if it has been removed as part of these revisions, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.Your statement assumes I should know anything about American high school textbooks. I don't. I doubt what you are saying because it has been my experience, in discussions such as this, that accusations of left-wing bias in American institutions are generally little more than a smokescreen or an ad hoc justification for whatever the religious right are getting up to at the time.Everything other than the thing we are discussing right now, propaganda in high school textbooks.

And in my experience these plots by the "religious right" are merely an invention by the left to justify them pushing their views in the name of "diversity" and "political correctness." I saw it in high school, in college, and it seems it doesn't start there. Here is something for you to dismiss as part of the same vast right-wing conspiracy. And an interesting opinion piece but apparently only liberal opinions are the "facts" in your mind. To be honest I can't remember my whole western-civ textbook, but I remember going to the lecture hall for presentations about the "gay struggle", and more than a fair share of biased teachers and professors. Now I don't know what education system you went through, but there are many with similar experiences to myself, and when today's children are watching Al Gore's movie, it hardly seems like the situation is improving.

You cannot provide evidence to support your claims. Your arguments would appear to stem from personal bias and nothing more.It doesn't really have to be. If the Texas State Board of Education is passing a law that will downplay racial issues in the United States in favour of expounding on the failings of "godless communism", an unbiased observer can only reach the conclusion that there is a political agenda behind it. Although not a "vast conspiracy", that's just a straw man.As far as I'm aware, Turkey does not have a national motto that endorses monotheistic religion.

And you have providing no more evidence than myself, so do we start spamming links or what here? Yes I am biased based on my experiences and admit that, your deluding yourself if you think you aren't biased. And maybe the political agenda you see on the right is necessary to deal with the agenda on the left. So now the motto of "One Nation Under God" somehow makes us a theocracy? Once again you have taken the concept of "secular government" to the extreme when you try to attack the government for "endorsing monotheistic religion." There has never been a problem with such a thing throughout America's history. When you act as if "secularism" is a religion of it's own, you clearly have a deformed view of what the founders of this country intended.

A secular nation does not conflate national identity with belief in God. America does.Don't know what that's in reference to, but buzzwords like "liberal hivemind" don't make up for your inability to justify your overstated arguments with fact.

Then maybe America doesn't have a secular government by your fringe definition. But we don't have a state chruch, we allow freedom of religion, we don't bow before the Vatican or a similar organization. For all intents and purposes that is what really defines a secular government, not "political correctness" to the point where national motto can't mention God and a government official can't say a prayer!

I'm clearly not going to change your opinion, and you certainly aren't going to change mind. So I might as well let you boys get back to this circle jerk about how such intelligent liberals you are and how Texas should be given to Mexico.