Texas Curriculum Standards

First off: Dwip, damn you for posting about this :P

Now, on to the meat of this oh so interesting story. The Texas State Board of Education has gone and done something rather stupid. It's a rather long, boring, and mostly dry account that someone apparently blogged "live" while observing the debate over what changes to make in the curriculum standards for the Texas school system. Usually these things aren't a major concern, but a couple of things have shown up in here that I just can't let go.

Right up front, I want this out of the way. That site above bills itself as "A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right". Do keep this in mind, because that has all the hallmarks of code for "we're crazy lefties trying to hide our agenda".

#1: The board members have voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from the world history standards. Yes, that's right, you can read the site for yourself. Apparently the old buzzard isn't important enough for them to mention anymore. Nevermind that Jefferson is one of the most influential founders of our nation. Forget about the fact that his writings include the Declaration of Independence and a substantial portion of the Constitution. My gut is telling me this isn't the result of right-wing politics gone awry. I don't know about anyone else, but as a self-proclaimed right-winger I consider Thomas Jefferson among our most important founders and cannot fathom any reason to drop him from the study of US, if not world, history.

No, he's not just that weirdo on the $2 bill or the 5 cent piece! His writings inspired a great deal of political upheaval and outright revolutions in Europe as well. Only progressives/liberals have any interest in obscuring the history of our great nation like this. The so-called religious right has no real motivation to do so.

#2: The board wants to remove language from their economic study standards that mentions capitalism. The reported reason? "The board’s far-right members have repeatedly complained (absurd) that “capitalism” is a negative term". Ok, I'm having an awfully hard time swallowing that the "far-right" would care one way or the other about using the term capitalism. That's what it is. Most folks I know, left, right, or otherwise, use the terms capitalism and free enterprise interchangeably. Removing the term capitalism from the standards is just crazy. I don't know a single Republican or Conservative who would ever think that capitalism is a negative term. Just watch Glenn Beck for a few minutes and he'll probably use the word without thinking about it. I'm sure a lot of people would consider him far-right.

So again, something isn't quite passing the smell test for me about who these board members really are. Regardless of that, it's still crazy talk to call capitalism a negative term. Unless of course you happen to be a socialist or a communist.

#3: One of the other board members, Mavis Knight, offered up another amendment for the standards. This one covering the 1st Amendment and the protection of religious freedoms. "Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state." Sounds good, right? The next chunk in the minutes has this: "Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America." Guess what? Cynthia Dunbar is exactly right. The founding fathers did not intend for there to be the so-called separation of church and state. Their entire philosophy of government was based on having God involved. Go over their writings, and it's unmistakeably clear that this is so. The separation only came during the 1960s with a series of Supreme Court rulings that shattered the moral underpinnings of our nation.

Pretty sorry stuff, right? Well, again, I'm calling BS, based entirely on this chunk:

12:35 – Knight’s amendment fails on a straight party-line vote, 5-10. Republicans vote no, Democrats vote yes.


So wait. These guys spent an entire web page whining and complaining about how the far-right faction on the board is ramming things down everyone's throats.... yet the Democrats have the overwhelming majority on this board? Yes, it all starts to make much more sense now. Bizarre vote to drop Jefferson's writings, bizarre vote to strike capitalism as a negative term, bizarre vote to claim the founders intended for there to be a separation of church and state. I'm sure those far-right Democrats are just nasty horrible evil people, aren't they.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Pi Day
Nerd Test »

Posted on Mar 16, 2010 3:56 am by Samson in: | 22 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
Wait.... what??

So the little Texans in kindergarten today won't ever know who Jefferson is? What if they go on Jeopardy one day? They'll lose and look stupid in the process! :surprised:

Can't wait for Conner to wake up and rant on this one :)

       
Dude, the Republicans are the ones with 10 seats, the Democrats only have 5. The vote must have been to kill the change. The Republicans were successful in their effort to rewrite history.

Since the decisions made in Texas affect textbooks through the entire country, every American has an interest in the upcoming election and should contribute to these two intelligent, educated women who want to make education, not political grandstanding, a priority:
www.votejudyjennings.com
www.voterebecca.com

And they happen to be Democrats seeking to replace Republicans, so if they win, at least the Republican majority would be cut to 8-7.

       
Jon, the point here is, the entire rant on that other site is totally inconsistent with Republican or Conservative values. What happened there is simply not in line with the things we value. It's also inconsistent with what a proper study of history will reveal, so I'm failing to see how putting more Democrats on the board is going to help anything.

The only things I'm willing to concede is that removing Jefferson from the world history standards and that whole bit about capitalism being a dirty word were bonehead moves to make regardless of party affiliation. I'm simply not convinced though that it was the product of some kind of radical right-wing agenda.

       
There's not quite as much to rant about on this as you might think/expect, Hanaisse, Samson seems to have covered it pretty well, though Jon is right that the implication is that it's the Republicans in the majority here given the vote failed 5-10 with the Republicans being the ones who voted No.

Thankfully, Texas happens to be the state with the second highest number nationwide of kids being currently home schooled (surpassed only by California) and Texas' home schooling laws are such that home schooled children don't have to follow state approved curriculum, perhaps there's a reason for that.. end result is, though, that means this decision has no impact on my kids nor a significant percentage of the kids in Texas as a whole either. It is rather unfortunate for the rest of them, but that's just yet another reason to home school which means, in Texas, the number of kids being home schooled will probably start to increase again shortly.

Also, fortunately, Jon is quite mistaken. The amendment failed to pass because the Republicans voted no 5-10. That the Republicans are the ones in the majority is fairly comparable to the state's actual voting history too. (read the bottom of the blog entry that Samson linked...) As for Texas affecting textbooks throughout the entire country, that's as true as for every other state, but no more so than any other state.

On the other hand, the fact that they've voted to remove Jefferson is disturbing in general because it makes no sense at all and does establish a dangerous precedent for all the other states out there to consider following.

The thing with capitalism is just bizarre, unless the school board members have been watching too much Star Trek: The Next Generation and are equating "capitalism" with piracy.

       
Samson said:

Jon, the point here is, the entire rant on that other site is totally inconsistent with Republican or Conservative values. What happened there is simply not in line with the things we value. It's also inconsistent with what a proper study of history will reveal, so I'm failing to see how putting more Democrats on the board is going to help anything.

Exactly, it's clearly not some republican agenda thing because it's completely inconsistent with Republican ideology, and it's certainly not good teaching practice with regard to history either. Changing the board's party demographics should have no real bearing other than to get rid of a few of the boneheads who approved the two changes that were passed.

       
As it happens, this thing runs a bit deeper than a couple guys and a couple motions. There's a pretty interesting New York Times article on the subject. I've also seen a lot of Little Green Footballs on the subject, although you can see the biases pretty clear there.

Biases which I agree with, frankly. Three things that bug me a lot about this thing:

1. The idea that Texas does, in fact, have a lot of influence on textbooks across the country, insofar as Texas buys a lot of them and publishers will write to those standards;

2. You've got a board full of non-experts (on both sides of the political aisle) writing standards, which is just totally crazy;

3. A decent number of these people are what I would consider utterly bugfuck crazy. Which is to say that I really don't have a lot of use for the Christian Right, and insofar as I have a reasonable amount of historical training, I think they're full of shit. For my own part, I think the most compelling argument to be made is that the Founders were of all sorts of differing religious traditions, and that we've got elements in our legal tradition from several of them, with a very generous helping of English common law, Greek and Roman legal and governmental traditions, and a few other things. New England Puritanism aside, however, the idea that the US is magically some God-given Christian paradise is insanity, and in any case we don't have the demographics of 1789 anymore.

       
Samson said:

"Knight points out that students should understand that the Founders believed religious freedom was so important that they insisted on separation of church and state." Sounds good, right? The next chunk in the minutes has this: "Board member Cynthia Dunbar argues that the Founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America." Guess what? Cynthia Dunbar is exactly right. The founding fathers did not intend for there to be the so-called separation of church and state. Their entire philosophy of government was based on having God involved.


The idea of the separation of church and state came out of the ethical writings of John Locke, who was the founder of the liberalism school of thought which became the basis for many modern liberal democracies and in the USA you do actually have the separation of church and state to the degree to which Locke considered necessary. From the brief read of Samsons post i can only conclude that the people on the school board have no understanding of ethical and political theories.

In the separation of church and state. the state cannot mandate or support one religion over another or enforce a state sanctioned religion. In the USA this is exactly what you have, you can be Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Christian or Wingnut and the state deals with all on equal footing. The only time the state has anything to do with the restriction of religion is if the religion in some way breaks social bounds, IE: you cannot have a religion that kills people, but you can have a Satanist religion which to many people is distasteful.

You can have religious based political parties, IE, Christian Democrat so long as they do not promote one ideology over another or restrict the freedoms of other religious denominations. Again, this is entirely consistent with liberalism and with the US based political system.

The notion of God being central to the political system, and thus the argument of what the founding fathers espoused to, is somewhat more tricky to deal with, Whose God, what God, and does the notion of God being central to the political system discriminate against those religions who have many or no Gods at all. I think that the only way to be fair to all religious beliefs and thus hold true to the idea of separation of church and state, is to keep the idea of God out of the political system and leave these sorts of matters up to the individual to decide. Again, this is something that the US political system does.

I think that keeps in line with what the US founders were trying to achieve, (please don't crucify me on this, im not well read in early US history, and this is mostly based on my own understandings and views.) They came from a place where there was religious intolerance, and state enforced religion, remember that for successive reigns, the UK kings and queens jumped between state sanctioned Catholicism and Protestantism. And while they were mainly concerned with Christian believe, i do not think its is unfair to extend their ideal to cover all other religions.

Personally i wish the religionardoes would let it go and stop trying to turn nations into christian versions of Islamic nations. I do not need the thought police telling me how to live my life and with whom i can do it with. Sometimes i think that what they really want is the one party system of China with some religious guru as their figure head. Pope for President anyone? Heaven fucking help us! Oh and don't let me get started on christian fundamentalists, i have nothing good to say about the bastards.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Mar 16, 2010 7:54 pm
Yes, Dwip, Texas will certainly influence textbook publishers based on their own purchase specifications based on their doctrined curriculum and purchase quantities, but again, so does every other state. I don't know that Texas' population in the 5-18 year old age grouping is necessarily as significant to the publishers of textbooks as (let alone more so than) say New York or California, but it probably is quite a bit more so than Rhode Island or Delaware. You're second point bugs me too, but from what I've seen it's a very common scenario and thus falls back into the category of yet another really solid good reason to home school your kids so you know they're being taught what you feel they need to learn rather than the subject matter these officals have determined they should be learning. Being Jewish myself, I would agree that the U.S. should never be allowed to become anything resembling a "God-Given Christian paradise", but I also don't like the idea that it's becoming an atheistic haven to the exclusion of every & any other religion like the Soviet Union tried for. No, we don't have the demographics of 1789 anymore, now we're [all caucasion judeo-christian practitioners] far outnumbered by mexicans and middle easterners who are forcefully demanding that their rights & beliefs and even native language should be enforced upon everyone else, despite the fact that we all spoke English in this country as an unofficial national language long before they got here and, up until fairly recently, even demanded that all immigrants to this country learn at least enough English to "get by" in order to become citizens.

Fury, I believe that Samson's point regarding that was that the founding fathers may have been fleeing religous intolerance and whole heartedly demanding religious tolerance for the new country they were founding, but they did not by any stretch of the imagination expect a "seperation of church and state" to the extent that God should be banned altogether from the government, let alone by the government for the rest of the nation. That came about because some judge back in the 1960s determined that Locke's writings applied to what the forefathers of the US had written, despite that it exceeded what they otherwise clearly intended. Beyond that, I think a big part of the problem in this country currently is exactly what you said, we allow anyone to practice any religion they want to in thsi country so long as it doesn't involve direct human sacrifices and such, but every politician we've got, regardless ofwhat religion they claim to practice, is actually a practicioner of that Wingnut religion you'd mentioned. ;)

       
If you think the founding fathers did not intend for God to play a role in government, read this, because if I have to stomach reading that ridiculous diatribe from the NY Times, you guys should at least do me the courtesy of putting up with one of Glenn Beck's transcripts in return. I'm not even going to waste my time digging through the trolling going on at Little Green Footballs. They seem to be taking articles submitted via The Onion seriously, which doesn't say much for the folks running the place.

That NY Times article whined and complained to no end about how Texas spends $22 billion on educating children and the tone of the article was complaining bitterly about indoctrination. Yet they didn't bother to mention California's insane $70 billion education budget at all, or the fact that the curriculum here is built around liberal indoctrination. Fascinating how that works out.

What the Texas Board is doing cannot be defined as historical revisionism because our entire country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. There's really no denying that if you actually read the Declaration of Independence yourself, or read what the founders actually wrote. No, if anything, the Texas Board is attempting to restore accurate historical teachings to the curriculum. Except for this nonsense about removing Jefferson and capitalism of course. But on that I refuse to accept those initiatives came from the right-wing.

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment was not intended to completely shut out the role of God or religion in government. In fact, you'll find with enough research that even Congress back in the early 1800s passed resolutions stating quite clearly that they couldn't conceive of how government could legitimately exist WITHOUT God. It's only been since the end of World War II or so that the progressive poison has been introduced into our system and is rotting it from within. A point Beck goes out of his way to repeat over and over.

Oh, and btw, where's the outcry over bending over backward to avoid offending the Muslim invaders in our country? I notice nobody seems to be raising a single protest against how many PUBLIC schools are giving them time to pray to Mecca but if a Christian wants to pray to Jesus, the student is expelled.

       
Edited by Samson on Mar 16, 2010 8:59 pm
While I think you and I are one the same page about the majority of this topic, I'm a little concerned by your last stanza, I mean.. damn, forwarding emails about it doesn't count? Does my protest against the Islamic invaders count as null if I don't post it to my blog?? :cry:

       
Conner, of course it counts. I was referring to the "mainstream" outrage articles by the NY Times, LA Times, etc. You know, mass media exposure. When's the last time you heard any of those venues demanding that Christians be allowed to pray in schools on equal footing with the Islamic radicals?

       
Ah. in that case I take back those tears. It really would be nice if some of the mainstream media would wake up and start voicing the opinions of those they'd want as subscribers, but they've already, more than clearly, demonstrated over the last few years that they couldn't care less about the general public or their opinions and have gone all out on their own agendas. Oddly enough, their own agendas don't seem to be in conflict with the subversion of the country wholesale. :(

       
Oh, and btw, where's the outcry over bending over backward to avoid offending the Muslim invaders in our country? I notice nobody seems to be raising a single protest against how many PUBLIC schools are giving them time to pray to Mecca but if a Christian wants to pray to Jesus, the student is expelled.


I dont know how you guys do things in the USA, but here in Australia, there is no religious expression within the public school system period. However, if you attend a private school, or are home schooled, its is anything goes as far as what you teach in areas of curriculum not covered by national or state standards. So, at a Catholic private school, students will attend mass, at an evangelical school you will have someone pushing people over telling them they have been overcome by the power of the holy ghost, in an Islamic school they will pray toward Mecca and in a secularist school they will worship Richard Dawkins the grand poo baa of evolution.

The trouble as i see it in the USA and perhaps even here in Australia is that fundamentalists are trying to impose their own views upon the general public by stealth means. Take the above school board as an example, you have 1 guy who is a religious nutter who makes 100's of proposals based on his skewed view of what is morally good for the masses. You have fundamentalist religious leaders who are trying to impose their religious views on the masses by infiltrating school boards to steer curriculum towards their belief systems.

Fundamentalism in all forms is dangerous, and this is especially true of Christian fundamentalists. Unlike their Islamic counterparts who blow up in your face, the Christian type is much more pervasive and will use subversion, manipulation and divisive tactics to whittle away at your freedom to choose what is best for you, but they are waging a holy war/crusade no less than their Islamic counterparts. Either way, the end result is the same, wingnuts trying to enforce their idea of morality on everyone.

Mathew_7_15-16 said:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them


Interestingly, Jesus warns us of fundamentalists,

Mark_16_15 said:

He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.


He did not say infiltrate school boards and subvert him upon the masses. It is the Christians job to tell the good news, not make people believe it. Jesus did not give a rats ass if you did not want to believe him, if you were a waste of time, he just moved on, the only people he ever hassled out were the pharisees and the money changers in the temple, because the temple was gods house, which should have been shown some level of respect, and also because the pharisees should have known better, they were the religious scholars, instead, they lorded it over the people and were making money out of them. Interestingly, you compare the pharisees with most Christian leaders and there is no difference at all. both are scum and neither preaches the truth and their real god is the almighty $$.

/END Religion 101.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Mar 17, 2010 8:04 pm
God gave us the free will to choose what we would like for our lives, we can choose to believe in him or we can choose to not believe in him, either way, it is our choice, and it is this choice that fundamentalists and evangelicals would like to take away from you, by forcing you to learn religious history, theory and beliefs. Given half the chance, the fundamentalist movement would turn the USA and Australia into a christian version of Iran, where instead of the Mullahs dictating morality, it is the Church leaders. Where is the choice in that? There is none.

The church offers a mixed message here tho, on one hand it speaks of the freedom of Christ, yet, at the same time, its playing games and trying to weasel its way into things that it has no real need to be in. Either the Gospel is truth, in which case they should be spreading that message to all corners of the Earth, or its a crock of shit. To mind, if they believed what Christ told them, they would have no need for games, politics and rhetoric, because they would be our enjoying the freedom that Christ won for them on the Cross.

Instead, you have a church that is busy playing politics and struggling to gain power and wealth, that is fearful of anyone who can think for themselves and who is free and understands the freedom of Christ, and that keeps people feeling condemned and fearful of a salvation that was freely given to them for all eternity.

Bottom line is, the church is a self serving edifices bent on control and domination, that cares more about wealth generation and political power than it does about its core obligation of spreading the gospel to all corners of the earth. I would be more concerned with the subversive ways in which the fundamentalist movement is working in society to push its agenda and ideology than anything that the major political parties are up to, because it is here, that your fundamental right to choose what is right for you and is being fought for.

       
Edited by The_Fury on Mar 17, 2010 11:55 pm
Interesting rant, Fury. I certainly wouldn't have tried to call it "Religion 101" though, possibly "Christianity is as bad as Islam" or perhaps "The Evils of Fundamentalism" instead...

Yes, the church is a self-serving edifice bent on control and domination, but so is almost any "church" out there, the real evil is organized religion, But that's really not so germane to the ongoing discussion in this thread, is it? In fact, I'm not entirely sure it's clear to me what the connection might be between your rant and what you quoted of what Samson wrote. He was complaining that the media is on a mission to help eradicate religion from schools, government, etc but happily turns a blind eye to the fact that Muslims in this country are getting away with bringing their religion to even our public schools by claiming "rights" that everyone else is expected to understand aren't rights for the anyone but them. (I suspect there was a better way to phrase that, but.. it'll have to do for the moment.) On the other hand, your two posts seem to be about how the Christian Church is basically as bad as the Islamic Mosques, which may be true and evil worthy of mention, but it lacks a tie in that I can see to the issue at hand.

       
I summarily dismiss the rant as nothing more than, well, a rant :P

I refuse to accept the notion that Christian fundamentalists are on par with Islamic radicals. Check your local news, listen for the daily reports of Christian suicide bombers blowing up innocent people.... oh... right. Doesn't happen.

As Conner points out, this really has nothing to do with the libs in Texas getting angry that some Christian board members aren't standing for their revisionist ways and fought back. Since they lack a majority on that board, they need to court favor with 1 or 2 other people each time, so it's not even fair to say they're ramming an agenda down anyone's throats because all the other 8-9 people need to do is say no and it's over. One might instead stop and consider that perhaps Texas wants God to be involved in public education and they're not going to listen to the Feds telling them they can't do that.

Besides, as Conner also pointed out, the majority of Texas kids are either in private schools or home schooling so none of what the communist revisionists want for this country is getting through to them anyway. Yes, removing Jefferson from the standards was lunacy, but what the left wants for everyone and their uncle here makes this seem extremely tame by comparison.

       
What you perceive to be an issue being driven by left/right politics and media bias, i see as one whose root cause is driven by a fundamentalist christian agenda, thus my post and what i felt was relevant. If they would butt out of politics and schooling issues and focus on what should be their core business activity: spreading the word, then we would not be having this discussion.

@Samson, while Christian radicals do not blow themselves up, they do plenty of other things as equally abhorrent, there is no need to list the murders of abortion doctors by pro-life evangelicals for example, but these are an exception not the rule and mostly due to a difference in teaching between Islam and Christianity, its not like a Christian is going to gain 70 virgins and go to heaven, more like 25 years of anal abuse by bubba and co in jail/hell. So there is just not the intensive structure to commit these sorts of acts.

This alone is not enough to differentiate the 2, because they are identical in many ways that are much more relevant, radical Islam and Christianity are identical, they both want single religion state, they want power and money, they want to remove your right to choose what you want to believe and what is moral and they want to destroy the other group. Militant Christianity, while no longer a major faction today, certainly had its time of favor, crusades anyone?

       
Edited by The_Fury on Mar 18, 2010 1:00 am
Yes, Christians have a long standing history of deplorable actions, and yes, Christianity is certainly as domination intent as Islam, but I really don't think that's what we're seeing in this situation, Fury. I think this instance is a matter of religious/political views being plugged into (or unplugged, in this case) from educational curriculum for public schools in one state by folks who aren't really qualified to be deciding what should be in that curriculum. In other words, the real issue here is why these boneheads are setting curriculum standards for the state when they shouldn't be and their choices clearly demonstrate that they shouldn't be the ones in that position.

       
... and further... their choices aren't boneheaded because they're religious types. They're bonheaded because Thomas Jefferson was a profoundly influential figure in world history during his lifetime and cutting him from those standards is just plain dumb no matter who you are. Same with the nutty treatment of the word capitalism.

That said, since our nation's founding is heavily influenced by religion and the writings of nearly everyone at the time clearly indicate this, it makes just as little sense to start stripping THAT out of the standards as well. Teach history the way it happened, not the way you wish it happened.

       
The ironic part of this (since I know how much Fury said he enjoys irony, I'll point this out) is that Jefferson was reputed to have been, for his time, as much a religious fundamentalist as the religious fundamentalists who just took him out of the public school history curriculum...

       
To slightly update my argument, using something I posted in my own thread on the subject:

Dwip said:


And, well, look. It’s not that I have a problem with the idea that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so much as it’s that I have a problem with the idea that the country was founded *solely* on Judeo-Christian principles, or that, for that matter, that there’s necessarily one set of said principles that everybody agreed on. If you’re going to start tossing in the Puritans and whoever else, you also need to be talking about the Masons and Greco-Roman principles and the non-religious nature of most of the Englightenment.

The main problem I have is that I don’t see much interest in that in the Texas thing, so much as I see a bunch of theocrats attempting to push a distorted version of the TRVTH down everybody’s throats.

The other bit of that, and I’ll just quote Conner here because he said it well:

Conner said:

I think this instance is a matter of religious/political views being plugged into (or unplugged, in this case) from educational curriculum for public schools in one state by folks who aren’t really qualified to be deciding what should be in that curriculum. In other words, the real issue here is why these boneheads are setting curriculum standards for the state when they shouldn’t be and their choices clearly demonstrate that they shouldn’t be the ones in that position.


To comment on the other half of this discussion, it's not really here nor there, but I come down somewhere between Fury and Conner on Fury's religion rant. As far as that ties in to schools, it would seem to me that the best way to do things is to take a strictly secular viewpoint without making any attempt to play favorites between one religion and any other while making note of religious contributions to events. It would also seem to me that the fairest way to operate is to allow private prayer for all students regardless of faith or lack thereof, which again is neither here nor there as regards Texas.

Like I said, though, everything I've seen indicates that this isn't the position that's being sought by the majority, which is instead pretty heavily and explicitly an attempt to remake the standards in some bizzare fundamentalist Christian image.

Too, I am entirely curious as to what purported Bolshevik plots are being hatched by liberals on the Texas BOE. How bad could it possibly be, I wonder.

       
Setting aside the sense of flattery at being quoted in a cross-post on your blog for having stated my summary so well, and I am flattered by it, I would have to concede that the best solution would be to establish a curriculum that teaches history from a purely secular viewpoint (i.e., "just the facts, ma'am" ) with full notation of the religious contributions to the events as they occurred. Likewise, I believe, as humorous as it may be, some comedian came up with the real answer to prayer in school when (s)he anonymously said "as long as there are tests in school, there will always be prayer in school". I'll also further agree that I'm also not seeing anything resembling that being sought by the majority, but I'll also point out that it's human nature to wants others to see things from your own perspective and I think that is the case here as well, these folk have a particular religious bent that they think is the only right way rather than an honest critique of the system they're currently in a position to direct.

I'm afraid that I am a firm believer that it's always a bad idea to ask "How bad can it possibly be" or other variants of the "It can't get any worse" type statement because it usually precedes being answered in a far worse way than you'd imagined. (Call it Stapp's version of Murphy's Law, if you'd like...)

       
Edited by Conner on Mar 18, 2010 6:47 pm
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31