Stryker500;5327123Here is something for you to dismiss as part of the same vast right-wing conspiracy. And an interesting opinion piece
Both those articles are merely making the same claims you've been making, with the same lack of evidential support. If they were from more objective sources I might be inclined to believe them regardless, but in fact, you seem to have chosen the least objective sources possible. It doesn't really surprise me that religious conservatives would take issue with a curriculum that doesn't set about to instill conservative and religious values in students, but I don't choose to live in a world where something must either be too liberal or too conservative, apparently unlike them and yourself.
but apparently only liberal opinions are the "facts" in your mind.
Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes: The facts here have been clearly and comprehensively outlined. In my opinion they point to a political agenda on the part of the religious right. So far, although you seem to really take issue with this conclusion, you haven't actually stated that you disagree with it, I guess because it's so obviously correct.
To be honest I can't remember my whole western-civ textbook
So you can't remember if what you said was true or not. Why didn't you say so in the first place? :)
but I remember going to the lecture hall for presentations about the "gay struggle"
Only a problem if you're a bigot, I'm afraid.
and more than a fair share of biased teachers and professors.
Yeah, and all teachers everywhere have a liberal bias, there are no conservatives. You realise that if biased teachers are really the problem, then changing textbooks will do nothing to help the situation?
And you have providing no more evidence than myself
What am I being asked to provide evidence of? The revisions themselves? No, you already know about those. That there's an agenda behind them? I think it's self-evident and even you haven't denied the fact. Before you ask for evidence, define what it is that I'm supposed to prove to you.
Yes I am biased based on my experiences and admit that, your deluding yourself if you think you aren't biased.
I try not to be biased, how about you?
So now the motto of "One Nation Under God" somehow makes us a theocracy?
So in your opinion, you are either secular, or a theocracy? That's a pretty shallow definition of secularism, as even having a state church does not a theocracy make. No, secularism means separating church and state entirely. No affiliation between the two, no laws defined purely by religious values, no statements of support for one religion over another religion, or lack of religion.
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.
How do you mean? What federal endorsements of religion have there been in America, before the propaganda coup of "in God We Trust"?
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.
I hope that attempt at being patronising made you feel better because it serves no other purpose in this discussion. If you choose to withdraw from the debate after such a poor showing, then I can draw my own conclusions as to why.
I didn't make it!
Stryker500;5327141In my mind both this nation's history and the fact that this is a nation of the "people" make us a Christian nation, which does not equate to a theocracy. [/QUOTE]
.....And America since the start has been a multi ethnic state so you might as well just throw that out.
Stryker500;5327141 And what is the context of that passage, who was being spoken to? Don't quote the Bible here to prove a point that I am not even looking to argue. [/QUOTE]
Thats what you were trying to say? It was when Jesus was speaking to Matthew and giving him commands on how to do things.
[QUOTE=Stryker500;5327141] The only serious flaw I see there is the failure to mention the non-crazy sort of eugenics. Yet who is to say what the exact wording in the text-book will state?
.......Maybe you should scroll down on the link.
[QUOTE=Stryker500;5327141] I wouldn't go so far as to say he was clinically insane. It also seems like standards for insanity have gone up since his time. Again, point out how he took things too far, but don't portray the man as comparable to Stalin or Hitler.
His entire witch hunt was baseless, he kept making up lies like how he was a tail gunner in WWII, he had a laundry receipt which he claimed was a list of 200 Communists, and his logic was fucked up, to say he's some sort of attention whore and had at least one thing wrong with him isn't far fetch.
There is no defending the agenda that was pushed by the Texas SBOE. It doesn't take much to see there was a definite religious bent in some of their changes, and it's no secret that the principle of secularism in the United States is downplayed by this group.
While it is a stretch to call it a theocracy, the United States is definitely backsliding from secular principles. That said, it's childish to think this is just limited to Texas. It's not a sentiment unique to them and is rampant in certain segments of the US population.
And with the way things are now, those people will continue backsliding away from secularism. We shouldn't see this thing happen in a government body, but the SBOE's structure left itself wide open to be hijacked by religious fundamentalists who would in other states not be allowed to do this.