| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/22/2010 09:34:02 AM · #1 |
I used to think that the United States was a country where freedom of speech was a cornerstone of its civil liberties and that the rest of the world, where there was a will to change and give people more power to mandate their own lives, would take heed and people everywhere would gain from this way of thinking and improve their livelihoods. Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers based their ideology on and it has worked, until now it seems. Ever since 911 there has been a drive to make the US seem like a religious country where Christian fundamentalism is the current way of thinking and that other religions are not accepted as American culture.
What gets to me is states like Texas changing how their students are being taught about the world and how ideas are being implanted into these students causing them to believe something that isn't necessarily true. What road is the US taking with this type of brainwashing? I don't like using the word brainwashing but what other word is there to describe what Texas is doing to their students? Will they have other choices? No and that's why I use the word. Indoctrination is another word I don't like to use but it suits the case here. If you don't give choices to kids they become indoctrinated and brainwashed into thinking what the school board wants them to think. I'm appalled this is happening to a country I so loved all my life and considered a leader of human rights and freedom of speech. Who will carry the freedom of speech flag now? What country will be looked upon as a protector of our human rights when the most respected carrier of freedom is back-tracking into a State of Religious control over its citizens? China? Who by the way will become the major power on this planet, it's already the major economic power it'll just take a little more time for them to dominate our ideologies throughout this world. This isn't about China though.
Why are the American people accepting these new ideologies from a state that doesn't hold a great track record for human rights. (slaves, religious doctrine, treatment of migrant workers, etc)
Texas wants you to think that Thomas Jefferson was wrong
Am I the only person seeing this? Or is it accepted by all Americans that they want a religious state like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia so they can confront the evil that other religions bring to civilizations, like terrorism or fanaticism? |
|
|
|
05/22/2010 11:54:21 AM · #2 |
If the USA goes all Christian, they might invade Canada using Holy Hand Grenades.
Canada would have to fight back using attack beavers.
|
|
|
|
05/22/2010 12:05:39 PM · #3 |
lol
Micheal Palin's nauseating pinched nose sounding voice always gets me laughing. Now I want to see that movie yet again, and smoke a doobie while watching it. ahhh those merry days at the repertory cinemas that cost a buck are long gone... so are my doobie smoking days...and beer...and cigs.... and sex... wtf? Am I dead? :)
Thanks for the laugh. :D |
|
|
|
05/22/2010 02:06:25 PM · #4 |
In reading about this, it was justified by the last curriculum being slanted toward liberalism. Personally, I think any slant is wrong. If it is impossible to present US history without political bias then include both sides.
I took a course last semester (master's level) that was an indoctrination into the multicultural worldview. Students should not be told what they "have" to believe or how they "should" view the world--at any level of education. What happened to presenting the facts, or at least presenting differing viewpoints? Scary times... |
|
|
|
05/22/2010 03:01:36 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
In reading about this, it was justified by the last curriculum being slanted toward liberalism. Personally, I think any slant is wrong. If it is impossible to present US history without political bias then include both sides.
I took a course last semester (master's level) that was an indoctrination into the multicultural worldview. Students should not be told what they "have" to believe or how they "should" view the world--at any level of education. What happened to presenting the facts, or at least presenting differing viewpoints? Scary times... |
The religious right believe that anything that doesn't agree with their view has a liberal slant. That doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 12:22:29 AM · #6 |
One word solves this problem:
Homeschool |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 12:38:16 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
If it is impossible to present US history without political bias then include both sides. |
That's the greatest scam of all, convincing us that there are only two sides and that they are both equally true... steering us toward a blissful "center"
|
|
|
|
05/23/2010 02:30:37 AM · #8 |
There has been a lot of balyhoo about these folk of a fixed and determined viewpoint, who wish to mold the minds of the American schoolchild to follow their views on history and faith, to cut and paste our past into a story that can only lead to agreement with their views; But what they are really doing is dividing our country. Given the rise of digital technology, though the school boards of Texass may rewrite the history of the world for the consumption of children of their state, different truths will be custom made and printed for other state's school children. Gone are the day when one printing was sent to all schools across the nation. Its a digital world , and textbooks are more customizable than in day of yore.
And next time you think about skipping an election that is only local stuff, and seems boring, remember it is the boring stuff like electing school boards that will determine how you child will be educated.
SWINDON: What will history say?
BURGOYNE: History, sir, will tell lies as usual.
-- George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 02:37:07 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
That's the greatest scam of all, convincing us that there are only two sides and that they are both equally true... steering us toward a blissful "center" |
I saw a savage bit of comedy late one night. The well tanned talk show host introduced his panelists. The mother of a victim of child rape, and a spokesman for NAMBLA, the National Man Boy Love Association. "Tonight we are going to look at this issue from both sides, and see if we can find the truth there, to seek common ground." |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 09:17:33 AM · #10 |
This wasn't what I was hoping for, Slippy. Good to see you back. And winning a RED again too!!!! |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 11:08:29 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by posthumous:
That's the greatest scam of all, convincing us that there are only two sides and that they are both equally true... steering us toward a blissful "center" |
I saw a savage bit of comedy late one night. The well tanned talk show host introduced his panelists. The mother of a victim of child rape, and a spokesman for NAMBLA, the National Man Boy Love Association. "Tonight we are going to look at this issue from both sides, and see if we can find the truth there, to seek common ground." |
What was the blissful center they arrived at? No need to answer. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 12:43:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
If it is impossible to present US history without political bias then include both sides. |
That's the greatest scam of all, convincing us that there are only two sides and that they are both equally true... steering us toward a blissful "center" |
nevermind. I misread Don.
Message edited by author 2010-05-23 12:43:54. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 02:09:07 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I took a course last semester (master's level) that was an indoctrination into the multicultural worldview. |
Indoctrination into the Multicultural Worldview 101?
|
|
|
|
05/23/2010 02:35:37 PM · #14 |
Regarding education, it's pretty much a given that any curriculum will reflect the bias of the educators. Even "open-mindedness" can logically be perceived as a form of bias, actually. And when the state is doing the education, it ought to go without saying the state will be biased in whatever direction it feels furthers its goals and worldview. Just as when a religion (cf Parochial School, for example) is doing the educating, then that particular religious POV will be in the forefront.
In homeschooling, the same applies, of course. When we homeschool our children, we are indoctrinating them in our particular worldview.
That's just the way it is.
R.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2010 03:44:53 PM · #15 |
I echo Bear. The original article has the quote, "Critics say the changes are ideological and distort history." which I find curious. With regard to separation of church and state (mentioned in the article), why would one assume the status quo "understanding" is any more accurate than the "revisionist" one? The application of that idea over the last 50 years does not look much like the application of the idea from say, 1800-1850, so why would we hold the current view as some sacred cow?
I'm not looking to get into a fight over church and state, but rather I just find it amusing that the "critics" are basically saying "the view that doesn't agree with us is revisionist"... |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 04:42:34 PM · #16 |
| The US is great because we have the ability to speak our minds, even to the point of denigrating our leaders. Our people suck because we so often take advantage of the right to denigrate said leaders. We too often choose to run our mouths, and do not use our other rights, such as voting, to actually make change occur. We are a nation of complainers, who expect everyone else to do the work, make the change, shoulder the responsibility. Then we wake up and bitch to find out things are not the way we'd prefer to have them. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 06:28:59 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not looking to get into a fight over church and state, but rather I just find it amusing that the "critics" are basically saying "the view that doesn't agree with us is revisionist"... |
Just curious, but if the views you allude to are not Revisionist, then you would describe them as what exactly.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 06:40:54 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not looking to get into a fight over church and state, but rather I just find it amusing that the "critics" are basically saying "the view that doesn't agree with us is revisionist"... |
Just curious, but if the views you allude to are not Revisionist, then you would describe them as what exactly.
Ray |
Potentially they are more accurate to the truth. As Don points out, there is a real answer to the questions "What did the forefathers intend when they spoke of a wall between church and state?" The answer that the wall was not meant to be complete could be more accurate and has always been an opinion as long as the question has been around.
In my reading (I recommend "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin among others), the current view of separation came about in about 1947 and has persisted to this year. However, the current court, over the next two decades, is likely to revert to something closer to pre-1947 (as they have already demonstrated). Let me ask you this? If the period from 1947-2010 is different from the period before and the period after, why are we to assume it was the "correct" one as "the critics" do in the article?
Again, we need not get into the details of separation. Obviously two opinions exist. But only one is correct when asked what the "intent" was and I don't really see this bedrock foundation the critics seem to think they stand upon. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 07:40:41 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As Don points out, there is a real answer to the questions "What did the forefathers intend when they spoke of a wall between church and state?" The answer that the wall was not meant to be complete could be more accurate and has always been an opinion as long as the question has been around. |
Why would a bunch of Deists want a Christian state? I find it horribly depressing to think that the U.S. is just another Christian country. I thought we were trying to do something different. |
|
|
|
05/23/2010 07:50:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As Don points out, there is a real answer to the questions "What did the forefathers intend when they spoke of a wall between church and state?" The answer that the wall was not meant to be complete could be more accurate and has always been an opinion as long as the question has been around. |
Why would a bunch of Deists want a Christian state? I find it horribly depressing to think that the U.S. is just another Christian country. I thought we were trying to do something different. |
Well, likely the times dictated some of it. Sure there were Deists, but there were many devout Christians in government as well (and among the forefathers). I also think the idea of a large population of atheists was probably pretty foreign to them. It may not even have entered their mind as a contingency to consider. So while they were trying to prevent a state sponsored or official flavor of religion, they may not have viewed a government totally devoid of all religion as superior.
Message edited by author 2010-05-23 19:52:28. |
|
|
|
05/26/2010 11:08:42 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As Don points out, there is a real answer to the questions "What did the forefathers intend when they spoke of a wall between church and state?" The answer that the wall was not meant to be complete could be more accurate and has always been an opinion as long as the question has been around. |
Why would a bunch of Deists want a Christian state? I find it horribly depressing to think that the U.S. is just another Christian country. I thought we were trying to do something different. |
Well, likely the times dictated some of it. Sure there were Deists, but there were many devout Christians in government as well (and among the forefathers). I also think the idea of a large population of atheists was probably pretty foreign to them. It may not even have entered their mind as a contingency to consider. So while they were trying to prevent a state sponsored or official flavor of religion, they may not have viewed a government totally devoid of all religion as superior. |
And yet, what needs to also be considered, is whether their particular beliefs are even relevant or a "sacred cow" in the first place. Not really intending to direct this strictly towards religion, but assuming our country should be governed in exactly the same manner as that which was intended at its founding is somewhat absurd, akin to believing all the laws of the Old Testament should be lock step followed today.... how much is relevant? The world was very different then. Do you think Washington and Jefferson had any concept of the existence of transnational organizations and a completely globalized marketplace? Or problems of population and mass immigration?
However, it's difficult to determine from this brief article exactly what types of changes are to be made in the curriculum and what is just vagueness from the article. For instance, if they really do mean that they are redressing the text to show that all taxation hinders markets, that would be an incomplete depiction of economics. Even those who despise raising domestic taxes realize the importance and necessity for subsidies and import tariffs, especially when we're discussing the flourishing of our domestic economy, which can't compete with international labor costs... Are these changes really simply to eliminate an existing bias, or an intentional push in the opposite direction? That is what remains to be seen. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2025 04:46:57 AM EDT.
