What’s the Matter with Texas?
[This is Part II of a five-part essay; if you haven't yet seen it, first read Part I here.]
In 2004, liberal historian Thomas Frank published What’s the Matter with Kansas?, a bestselling book in which the author expresses his utter mystification at how the citizens of Kansas could hold conservative values and vote Republican, when socialist economics and the Democratic Party were so self-evidently superior. While the author looked down his nose at the inscrutable ignorant rubes of Kansas, insultingly treating them like laboratory rats unable to solve the simplest maze, the book and its popularity ended up being more of a commentary on the ideological blindness of the author and his left-leaning readers: try as they might, they just don’t get it. As the book revealed, it’s not that left-wingers disagree with conservative principles; they actually cannot grasp the notion of having any principles whatsoever.
When it comes to the left/right divide over education, the focal point now is not Kansas, but Texas. As discussed in Part I of this essay, Texas plays a pivotal role in determining the content of textbooks used nationwide. And yet, bucking the national trend toward a left-leaning educational system, Texas consistently has pushed the conservative viewpoint at its influential school board meetings — infuriating and, yes, mystifying their liberal detractors. And so the time has come to rephrase the question: What’s the Matter with Texas? Why do Texans insist on being conservative when their self-appointed intellectual superiors have tried every trick in the book — mockery, bullying, media bias, legislation — to change the culture of the Lone Star State?
Unlike Thomas Frank, I get it. I understand that American patriotism, far from being nothing more than the reactionary buzzword of small-minded bigots (as leftists believe), is based on a deep awareness that the United States of America is the first (and to date only) nation based on an idea, rather than on geography or ethnicity. And not just any idea, but the highest ideals which the human mind can formulate: freedom, responsibility, self-reliance, equality of opportunity, individualism. And that to be patriotic in America is a shorthand way to declare one’s allegiance to these philosophical ideals.
The left, in its blindness, equates patriotism with brute nationalism, in particular the ethnic and chauvinistic nationalism of Europe which has led to totalitarianism and countless wars. And so the leftists condemn American patriotism as equally fascistic, unaware that by doing so they are rejecting not just the ideals on which America is based but the very notion of a nation based on ideals.
The revelation: Texas is not trying to push conservatism — it’s trying to preserve patriotism. (And by “preserve patriotism” I mean steadfastly uphold the principles upon which America rests.) Texas’ educational attitude only appears as “conservatism” to analysts because patriotism has been abandoned by the left in favor of internationalism, so conservatives are the only ones willing to stand up for patriotism anymore. In fact, the modern left has been so mesmerized by fantasies of a globalist utopia that American “conservatism” and “patriotism” have been conflated to essentially mean the same thing.
So, against the backdrop of a left-dominated public school system in the U.S. in which patriotism is increasingly downplayed or undermined in favor of multiculturalism and internationalism, when the Texas school board stands firm for a patriotic curriculum, critics accuse them of “pushing conservative ideology.”
There’s one little problem: While for the most part the Texas State Board of Education is in fact admirably defending patriotism, they unfortunately drag some ideological baggage into the meeting room as well, and do here and there attempt to push conservative and/or Christian viewpoints into the curriculum. Maybe not as much as their critics charge, and they’re not always successful, but they try. And try. And try.
And it is this attempt on the part of the TSBE to overreach which frustrates me to no end. Because every time they push back too hard, they look just as partisan as the leftists they’re trying to counteract. Which gives the media and the liberal critics a valid basis on which to criticize Texas’ attempt (and thus any attempt) to salvage a patriotic curriculum.
Furthermore, the conservative board members of the TSBE have in a few cases gone too far and ended up distorting historical fact to match their own wishful thinking for a Christian nation. When you want to rectify your opponent’s twisting of the facts, it’s never good to overtwist them yourself in the opposite direction. It might work when negotiating the price of a used car, but in an argument about the nature of truth it only serves to undermine your position.
 |
| Illustration by Buzzsawmonkey |
The TSBE’s Curriculum Recommendations
As discussed in Part I, this five-part essay is critical of both sides in the education debate. Parts III and IV will directly confront the dominant leftist agenda, and I’m not going to pull any punches. So don’t think I’m just here to bash conservatives or Christians. This second installment is specifically about the Texas State Board of Education, but it is not the entirety of my argument, so try not to get the mistaken impression that I’m being overly critical of conservatives and soft on liberals. Just think of it as tough love.
Earlier this year, the Texas State Board of Education met to revise its curriculum guidelines, which heavily influence the content of textbooks used across the country. Liberal pundits and the media just about had an aneurysm at some of the changes proposed by the board’s conservative majority.
The liberal-leaning Texas Freedom Network compiled a detailed list of what they characterized as the worst changes to the textbook curriculum approved by the TSBE.
If you want to fact-check this admittedly left-leaning list by referring to the source documents, you can see them here:
Line-by-line approved revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum [pdf document] (click to view as Web page; right-click to download as pdf).
Final approved curriculum, incorporating all new amendments.
Here are the lowlights of this year’s revisions according to the Texas Freedom Network, which pretty much comprehensively summarizes every single point which the liberal pundits and reporters found objectionable. As we shall see, I personally agree with some of the points made here, but the further we go down the list, the less the objections stand up to scrutiny:
Religious conservatives on the board killed a proposed standard that would have required high school government students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” That means the board rejected teaching students about the most fundamental constitutional protection for religious freedom in America. (3/11/10)
However, conservative news sources dispute this characterization. The Baptist Press, “news with a Christian perspective,” said:
[Opponents] wrote that the board’s “most egregious vote” was denying separation of religious and government institutions by rejecting a late amendment by Dallas Democrat Mavis Knight that students learn “the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”
McLeroy said he believed Knight’s amendment would paint the founders as neutral toward religion generally.
“They weren’t,” McLeroy said. “They simply didn’t want a state church, a state religion. That’s it. To say that we were against protecting the religious freedoms of all the people, that is all spin from the Texas Freedom Network. That’s all it is. Because it’s not right.”
Lowe added: “The First Amendment very clearly prevents Congress from establishing a national church, but it also promotes the free exercise of religion. Students need to understand that this is what the founders intended. It is inaccurate to say the Founding Fathers were neutral about religion; most were strong proponents of religious faith but did not believe in a national church controlled by the federal government.”
Hmmmm. Now we’re getting into an argument about details which are very hard to summarize in a textbook. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue several times in its history, but most of the landmark decisions tended to side with the secularist position that the First Amendment was more than about preventing a national church, but was generally about government not favoring or abetting religion in any way.
So it seems to me that the critics have a valid point here: The TSBE was promulgating as fact its wishful-thinking interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than the Supreme Court’s more “official” interpretation. Which, to me, is not kosher.
Moving on down the Texas Freedom Network’s list of liberal objections:
Even as board members continued to demand that students learn about “American exceptionalism,” they stripped Thomas Jefferson from a world history standard about the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on political revolutions from the 1700s to today. In Jefferson’s place, the board’s religious conservatives inserted Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin. They also removed the reference to “Enlightenment ideas” from the standard, requiring that students simply learn about the “writings” of various thinkers (including Calvin and Aquinas). (3/11/10)
Again, the argument over this issue has devolved into minutiae. See the link above which shows exactly how the standards were amended:
explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present; …
While it may be true, as the TSBE’s defenders point out, that the liberal media exaggerated this excision (especially in various overstated headlines), and that Jefferson of course was retained in other parts of the curriculum, the fact remains that the board did delete Jefferson from the list of thinkers in what to me (and a lot of other people) looked like a petty jab at him for being the champion of the “separation of church and state” doctrine. It’s hard to shake off the notion that they tried to downgrade the doctrine by removing any discussion of its sponsor from the list. Which, as I colorfully noted in Part I, seems more like a partisan ploy than an even-handed presentation of facts.
Continuing with the objections:
The board’s right-wing faction removed a reference to propaganda as a factor in U.S. entry into World War I. (The role of propaganda on behalf of both the Allies and Central Powers in swaying public opinion in the United States is well-documented. Republican Pat Hardy noted that her fellow board members were “rewriting history” with that and similar changes.) (1/15/10)
Cross-checking this with the revisions in the source document, it’s an accurate statement that the TSBE removed references to propaganda playing a role in our entry into WWI. Which, as the liberal critics point out, is pretty much an uncontested historical fact. Why did the TSBE do this? Because teachers were using the WWI propaganda example to criticize the way the media helped whip up public opinion to invade Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003? Whatever the motivation, expunging known facts, especially for possible political reasons (even ones I might happen to agree with) is egregious.
However, many in the MSM and on the left, including the Texas Freedom Network, predictably overplayed their hand in their condemnation of the TSBE’s recommendations by lumping in other changes by the board which upon closer inspection aren’t so outrageous after all. In many cases, the board had a valid point, or at least brought up an issue about which reasonable people could argue (but which up until now weren’t arguing because the liberal version of events had been ossified as historical fact). Here are some more entries from the TFN’s “List of Shame” which aren’t really that shameful. In fact, for most of them the only shameful part is the clumsy and ill-informed way the TSBE members bungled the defense of judgment calls which better debaters could have successfully championed:
Board conservatives succeeded in censoring the word “capitalism” in the standards, requiring that the term for that economic system be called “free enterprise” throughout all social studies courses. Board members such as Terri Leo and Ken Mercer charged that “capitalism” is a negative term used by “liberal professors in academia.”
…
The board changed a “imperialism” to “expansionism” in a U.S. history course standard about American acquisition of overseas territories in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Board conservatives argued that what the United States did at the time was not the same as European imperialism.
Actually, the board has a valid point here: The very terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” have become standard-issue insults among anti-American academics. Because the language has been tainted and over-politicized, it is reasonable to try to revert to more neutral terms.
The board stripped Dolores Huerta, cofounder of United Farm Workers of America, from a Grade 3 list of “historical and contemporary figures who have exemplified good citizenship.” Conservative board members said Huerta is not a good role model for third-graders because she’s a socialist. But they did not remove Hellen Keller from the same standard even though Keller was a staunch socialist. Don McLeroy, a conservative board member who voted to remove Huerta, had earlier added W.E.B. DuBois so the Grade 2 standards. McLeroy apparently didn’t know that DuBois had joined the Communist Party in the year before he died. (1/14/10)
The liberal argument here flops utterly. Mocking McLeroy and the others for unwittingly allowing some socialists into the curriculum is not a logical argument for the need to therefore include all socialists. But mostly, Huerta’s socialism was the central tenet of her career and fame, whereas Helen Keller’s and W.E.B. Dubois’s late-career socialism were incidental to the reasons they were being praised as examples of “good citizenship.”
In an absurd attempt to excuse Joseph McCarthy’s outrageous witchhunts in the 1950s, far-right board members succeeded in adding a requirement that students learn about “communist infiltration in U.S. government” during the Cold War. (Board member Don McLeroy has even claimed outright that Joseph McCarthy has been “vindicated,” a contention not supported by mainstream scholarship.) (1/15/10)
This is still a hot-button issue, but it could be (and is) argued convincingly from both sides. McCarthy was a bully and a jerk; but then again, as the nation learned decades after the fact, on a purely factual basis he was mostly correct — communists and their sympathizers had infiltrated the government. Perhaps McCarthy’s tactics haven’t been vindicated, but his claims have.
The board’s right-wing faction removed references to “democratic” (or “representative democracy”) when discussing the U.S. form of government. The board’s majority Republicans changed those references to “constitutional republic.” Board member Cynthia Dunbar also won approval for changing references to “democratic societies” to “societies with representative government.” (3/11/10)
This is a bit of transparent partisan bickering on both sides, each wanting to use the lower-case version of their favored political party’s names (democratic/republican) to describe our form of government. The board’s argument, however, is just as valid as that of their opponents.
Religious conservatives stripped from the high school sociology course a standard having students “differentiate between sex and gender as social constructs and determine how gender and socialization interact.” Board member Barbara Cargill argued that the standard would lead students to learn about “transexuals, transvestites and who knows what else.” She told board members she had conducted a “Google search” to support her argument. Board member Ken Mercer complained that the amendment was about “sex.” The board consulted no sociologists during the debate. (3/11/10)
This is a perfect example of the board having a good point but being too anti-intellectual to cogently defend it. Perhaps in college we can’t stop students from being inundated with postmodern claptrap about “gender being a social construct,” but I for one think it’s a good idea to stop that mental infection from spreading downward into high school. But the board members’ cringeworthy justifications ruin what could have been a teachable moment.
Read the full list at the Texas Freedom Network link for more liberal objections to the curriculum changes, some of which are valid, some debatable, and some totally invalid. Overall, one gets the impression that the TSBE was trying to correct embedded liberal bias in the curriculum, but overreached in some areas and made themselves open to criticism as extremists or religious partisans, and further embarrassed themselves with various boorish and ill-informed justifications for what could otherwise have been defensible positions.
Evolution
Even though this year’s meetings did not focus on evolution, the topic still looms over the conversation and needs to be addressed, since in past years the TSBE did debate how evolution should be presented in class, and it still remains the most controversial part of their curriculum recommendations.
At the 2009 meetings, the board’s religious members argued for the inclusion of “intelligent design” in science textbooks, and for a critique of Darwinian natural selection. They were not entirely successful in their attempt, and the end result was an awkward compromise that left neither side happy. But the very fact that they tried to excise or at best downplay evolution in textbooks revealed their intent to impose their version of religious ideology on the science curriculum. And this very fact alone earned the TSBE the undying antipathy of almost the entire scientific establishment.
It is beyond the scope of this essay to rehash the entire 150-year-long debate over the reality and significance of evolution-through-natural-selection. And as a longtime veteran of the online evolution wars, I know that nothing I say will convince some people anyway. So I’m just going to lay out, as briefly as possible, my stance on the topic, and let readers, if they are so inclined, duke it out in the comments section:
- The debate about the reality of evolution is over. Evolution happens, and it happens through natural selection. The evidence is beyond overwhelming and is conclusive.
- If you quibble about the meaning of the word “theory” without knowing its definition in a scientific context, then you unintentionally have disqualified yourself from the conversation.
- Intelligent design, creationism, or any other euphemism you care to use to describe “directed evolution,” are not scientific theories; they are religious beliefs, and as such have no place in a science class.
- Denial of evolution is not a necessary adjunct of being Christian or having religious sentiments; it is entirely possible to be religious and to accept scientific realities like evolution, and many evolutionary scientists are also Christians.
- “Darwinism” is not some sort of faith-based religion in its own right nor is it competing with Christianity, and anyone who claims so is either seriously misinformed or is purposely deceiving you.
- The scientific community takes an extremely dim view of any official in a position of power who tries to undermine the teaching of evolution; this is a make-or-break “litmus test” issue for most scientists.
- Therefore, the insistence by officials such as the Texas State Board of Education on tampering with evolution curriculum unnecessarily creates enemies out of many clear-thinking science educators who might otherwise applaud the TSBE’s pro-America and pro-factuality stance on other issues.
In other words: Even if you are an unwavering opponent of evolutionary theory, it is a terrible strategic blunder to insist that your view be taught in the public classroom as science, because doing so will deservedly earn you the enmity of millions of potential allies. This one issue is sufficient all on its own to mark its proponents (generally identified in America as “socially conservative Christians”) as overly partisan and unqualified to participate in discussions about school curriculum. And if you forfeit your position at the debate podium over this one sticking point, you will let the far left dominate the policymaking unopposed.
What Texas Is Up Against
As dejected as I am by the Texas State Board of Education’s amateurish and occasionally dishonest tamperings with the school curriculum, I realize that they’re operating in very hostile enemy territory. So, although, when seen in isolation, the TSBE’s agenda might make me cringe, when I look at the bigger picture, I start to cut them some slack.
For example, it was recently revealed that famed historian Howard Zinn was a communist — and not just a casual half-hearted communist, but a lifelong fierce and unapologetic advocate for Marxist-Leninist revolution, and a leading member of the Communist Party. Why should you care? Because Zinn was the author of the bestselling A People’s History of the United States, which is now considered a basic textbook in many school districts. As Roger Kimball noted,
The extremity and consistency of [A People’s History's] message — that America is and always has been an evil, exploitative country — guaranteed its success among the tenured radicals to whom we have entrusted the education of our children. More to the point, this history “from the perspective of the slaughtered and mutilated” nudged out all other contenders for the prize of becoming the preferred catechism in American — that is to say, anti-American — history. A People’s History is the textbook of choice in high schools and colleges across the country. No other account of our past comes even close in influence or ubiquity. No other, more responsible, telling of the American story had a chance. How could it? Given a choice between a book that portrayed America honestly — as an extraordinary success story — and a book that portrayed the history of America as a litany of depredations and failures, which do you suppose your average graduate of a teachers college, your average member of the National Education Association, would choose? To ask the question is to answer it. What this means is that most American students are battened on a story of their country in which Blame America First is a cardinal principle.
As bad as A People’s History is (and if you’ve never read it, the contents are worse than you can even imagine), it’s just the tip of the indoctrination iceberg. Zinn is not the point: He’s just the poster child for an across-the-board ideological coup d’etat by radical leftists who have already seized nearly complete control over the nation’s education curriculum, aside from the Texas-approved textbooks.
You don’t hear much about the curriculum these days because it’s a done deal. That fight is pretty much over, and (outside of Texas and a few southern states) the Left won. So there’s no need for Barack Obama to even mention the content of education in his proposals, because that aspect is already in the bag. Obama instead now focuses on funding for education, which may seem on the surface like a non-controversial issue. Yet if the funding is going to an educational system that is rife with political and philosophical indoctrination, then it doesn’t seem so non-controversial anymore.
And while it may be true that the radicalization of American schools of course long predates the arrival of Barack Obama on the national stage — absolving him of direct guilt in its implementation — he is quite obviously an enthusiastic supporter of the left-leaning curriculum currently in place, as evidenced by his earlier extensive career in academia where he championed leftist educational priorities.
Double Forfeit
It is against this backdrop that the Texas State Board of Education engages in its culture wars. Yes, the TSBE utterly contaminates its efforts with infuriating proposals to wipe away any mention of evolution and of the United States’ status as an explicitly secular nation. And for many people (including myself until recently), that’s enough to disqualify Texas from the debate.
But the more I read about the the even-more egregious left-wing indoctrination poisoning school districts nationwide, the more I feel that the other side is also disqualified from the debate.
Yet where does that leave us? A major dispute over the direction of our nation and no one remaining on stage to argue, both sides having been ejected for dishonesty?
As I said at the beginning of this essay, I wish that there was a sane alternative, a middle path, but at this moment no one wants to listen to people like me. And so, lacking any other competitors, I allow both the conservatives and the progressives back into my mental arena and admonish them, “Listen, you two: Neither of you deserve to be here, and you’re unworthy of my consideration. But unfortunately you’re the only alternatives we’ve got. So, since neither of you wants to compromise, I’ve got to decide which of your positions I find the least offensive.”
What Else Is On the Tray?
Since I hate each side’s main course, I have to look to see what else they have on their trays.
Aside from identity politics, historical falsehoods, ridiculous multiculturalism, communist propaganda, and relentless indoctrination, what else does the Left have to offer in its educational policy? Well, as we saw above encapsulated in A People’s History of the United States, the overall intent of the left-wing curriculum is to foster a hatred of America and American values and traditions. At every turn the U.S. is portrayed throughout its history as a genocidal, mean-spirited, racist, oppressive, fascist police state. Everything bad throughout our history is emphasized and blown out of proportion. Everything good is ignored or misconstrued beyond recognition. The anti-Americanism is subtle in elementary grades, and escalates in middle school and high school, and becomes full-blown by college.
On the other hand…
Aside from denying some fundamental scientific truths, ignoring aspects of history they find inconvenient, distorting certain amendments of the Constitution, and trying to get religion back into schools, what does the Texas State Board of Education and its allies have to offer in its educational policy? A love for America, its values and traditions (at least to the extent that those traditions aren’t expressly anti-religious). America, in the conservative curriculum, is glorified as the greatest nation in history, the source of democracy and freedom, the savior of the world.
It all comes down to a matter of intent. WHY does each side mutilate the truth? To what end?
In the case of the left, the ultimate goal is to overthrow the United States as we know it.
In the case of the right, the ultimate goal is to preserve and strengthen the United States.
What choice do I have, therefore, but to support the conservative side as the lesser of two evils?
Next: Part III — Indoctrination Nation.
Part I: Ideological War Spells Doom for America’s Schoolkids
Part II: What’s the Matter with Texas?
Part III: Indoctrination Nation
Part IV: In Pursuit of Cultural Hegemony
Part V: Proposals for an Educational Renaissance
Sigh. This is why I took to writing historical novels about the American frontier – an attempt to reclaim our own national history, and be even-handed and realistic about what the personal experience of it must have been like to real people, not stereotypes. Our America was a grand and daring experiment founded on ideals, and we simply had to counter the Zinneastas and their ilk. Six years ago or so, I began to have a strong conviction that hard times were coming and that we had be reminded that our ancestors, actual and metaphorical, were decent, courageous and hard-working people, that they built strong communities and thought of the future – and wouldn’t have wanted to be anything other than Americans. I put a lot of this into a novel about a pioneer wagon train, and then I followed it up with series about a German immigrant family becoming American. To live without a sense of history is to die a little, and to live with the warped version presented by Zinn, et al, is to die even faster.
How right you are. Thank you for trying to set the record straight . . . tilting against the biggest windmills in the history of the world.
Blessings.
Very well written articles, and I look forward to the next installments.
It is very bad that we have gotten to such a point that we cannot take the middle path. I consider the Left (at least the extreme left wing, which daily appears to have taken over) to not only be an enemy of America but a danger to the planet — they are dangerous nihilists at their heart; they do not love freedom; they are too nonchalant with the victims their quest for a leftist utopia creates (just look at the disgusting hypocrisies and callousness of so many priviledged children of the left towards the very real slaughters their pet governments have caused). So, I suppose I too side more with the Right. However, I greatly fear that if the extreme branch of the right, in trying to fight fire with fire as it were, goes too far we will be losing the ideal of America as our Founders thought her up. We will exchange one tyrannous political ideology for another — and one, which in time, may become just as anti-American as the left presently is (because I’m not sure if either side really likes America, other than as they would wish she would be; each wants to impose their story of America on everyone else…and then truth — and freedom, and individual thought — will be the first casualties). This is just as you have alluded here.
I don’t know what to do about this — but I believe for now I will support the Right, if anything to battle the Left; however, I think it is incumbent upon all truly patriotic Americans to remind the hard Right that support of them does not mean carte blanche to impose a monolithic thinking of their own upon everyone else. That they will not be allowed to become “the new Left”. Hopefully most on the right, should they win this ideological war for America, will call upon the wiser and better angels of their character and not be tempted to try and grasp such power as the left has done.
How does history have a practical side. A few months ago a conversation with a Mexican National here in Texas illegally summed up a long suspected observation. Why do Arizona and California have so many more problems with Illegals than Texas? He answered without hesitation, the bad ones are afraid to come to Texas because of the Rangers. One-hundred and fifty years of tough and unrelenting prosecution of the law in Texas has had an effect on the Mexican physique.
physique?
Well it might make them so nervous they don’t eat as well. [chill - just joking]
Yes, they slouch when they’re in Texas.
The controversy over the meaning of separation
of church and state continues, more than two
hundred years after the Founders established
the beginning of the New American Era by writing a
Declaration of Independence from British rule, and
designing a Constitution which began a new age of
the world by carefully separating the rules used
to govern a people in this world from the rules used
to prepare them for the next; Even the scholars who
study the subject often overlook the obvious play
on words in the motto on the Great Seal: A new,
_secular_, order of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novus_ordo_seclorum
Did you read the Wikipedia article? ‘Novus ordo seclorum’ means ‘new order of the ages’; it doesn’t mean ‘new secular order.’
My “psyche” phit the whrong kheys
“Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or Theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by it’s belivers, many of whom deny the existence, of the Creator.”
Dr. Menton Ph.D.
It is hard to prove Adam was created too, but Jesus Christ did live, heal, was murderd, and rose from the dead for mankind’s sins.
Getting rid of creation, allows the State to be G-d, and without G-d’s laws. Therefore, secular humanism can spread their New Age agenda of spoling the child, and whatever feels good do it.
America was founded on Christian values. As we depart away from morality as a nation, we see out of wedlock childbirth skyrocket, murdering of children called abortion, Fathers not taking care of the children they made which helps create homosexuality.
Homosexuality, a curse on a nation for it’s lack of morality.
American culture is under attack on many fronts. The education system is one. Was it Lennin that said give me the children for 20 years, and he could change a nation? Global Marxism vs Nationalism is the fight inside America.
I do not think that teaching evolution should needs be devolve into promoting decadence and whatever else. Learning evolutionary theory as a child did not turn me into some depraved communist or atheist; I was very capable of separating science from religion, the same with government and religion as a young child — but those were better times, when ideology did not trump all.
Evolution is a scientific theory (which, while not provable beyond a shadow of a doubt, can be conjectured to have a high degree of probability) — it should be taught in a scientific classroom (along with the Big Bang theory and the theory of relativity). Intelligent Design and creationism are religious theories and belong in a humanities class. Now, it would be really wonderful if children were given a thorough grounding in both science and humanities, with a stress upon free critical thinking and exhortion to try and be as an objective observer as possible — maybe even let the science department and the humanities co-teach the concepts in a cross curriculum genre, so the students could get a holistic view of all the different aspects of the debate.
I really fail to see why any of this has to become an issue — other than I am beginning to notice that free thought (which leads to a free society) is being squashed. And that is an attack on American culture and society.
Creationism and evolution are not necessarily opposing scientific theories.
I also note that at one time flat earth was conjectured to have a high degree of probability.
Ah…. faith, ain’t it grand.
My point is, I don’t think science and religion need have such an adversarial relationship. I don’t consider religious dogma a subject to be adressed in a science class, but by the same token science should not have to replace religious belief. In fact, I would prefer that my quest for knowledge and my faith in the divine (I do believe in evolution but I also believe in a divine creator; I don’t see them as mutually exclusive) not be trampled by either end of the spectrum — I would appreciate it if my children were given the same freedom.
Science cannot replace religion, as science and religion are nearly always talking about different things. Science is an attempt to explain various phenomena, be it the stars we see at night, or the similarity between tree species or fluid behavior at the boiling point. Religion is an attempt to place ourselves in the cosmos. What is good, what is permanent, where shall I be going, what should I be doing, where did I come from? One’s knowing taxonomy and biogeography of trees or of protozoa, or the behavior of solvents in solution says nothing about the issue of how shall I treat my fellow man, let alone my relationship with a creator or whether or not a creator exists. While science and science may intersect at the issue of origins, in most instances they diverge.
In being between the Creationists and the Politically Correct, my reply is that in 150 years since Darwin and Wallace let loose biological evolution on the world, those of a religious bent who have been opposed to biological evolution have had minimal effect on what students learn. On the other hand, the Politically Correct have had an enormous effect in the last 20-30 years on what students learn.
Its Either, Or. Either God created the universe or Nothing bigbanged the universe into existence. The propositions are mutually exclusive. But science tells us that matter is not eternal. Where did matter come from? From nothing; or by creation from nothing by an omnipotent Creator? You choose.
The same is true of Life, Intelligence, Love, Selfsacrifice.
We have not always existed, so we have a Cause. No Effect,us, can have a quality not found in its cause. But we are personally conscious, living, intelligent beings, capable of love and self-sacrifice. Therefore our Cause, Creator, must be a personally conscious, intelligent, living Being, capable of love, selfsacrifice, and also of creating and maintaining the universe, ie, God.
When, and by whom?
I do wish that people would stop insisting that everyone before Columbus believed that the world was flat. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the globe with remarkable accuracy in the time of Ptolemy II: this rather suggests that Eratosthenes, and all those who reported his measurements, realised that the world is not flat. In fact, most observant people in ancient times noticed the curvature of the horizon and other evidence against a flat-earth theory. Bernard of Clairveaux gave sermons to the peasantry in the twelfth century referring to the globe of the world without any need for further explanation. Many of those who argued against the funding of Columbus’ expedition accepted the notion of a spherical earth but disagreed with Columbus over his incorrect assessment of the distance between Spain and the (East) Indies, and thought that Columbus would not be able to reach Asia by travelling west and would surely run out of provisions ere that could happen—and they were right.
My use of “flat earth” was to embrace a vernacular in wide usage today and of common understanding in order to make the point that settled science is often less than so, that many a science ” conjectured to have a high degree of probability” is simply and often totally wrong. As such it is faith based. Although I am sure at some point most science believed in a flat earth lets use one example which maybe will enable you to see past your veil and grasp the concept of what I was saying.
For you, that example would be “Earth at the center of the universe” . Certainly all empirical evidence, sun and moon and stars rotating around us… well I think you understand now.
Faith, ain’t it wonderful.
Fantom, the Ptolemaic cosmos is an example of non-scientific philosophy. Ptolemy thought that the Earth was the center of the Universe because he didn’t have the understanding of inertia possessed by a deck seaman. He thought that the planets moved in circles because he believed the circle was the most perfect shape. As a result of this a priori knowledge he was forced to jerry-rig an elaborate system of circles to make the data fit his theory (where have we heard this before). The Church embraced Ptolemy because it well suited their world-view (again somewhat familiar), which forced Astronomers to add layer upon layer of complexity as better observations deviated from the “Truth” (this damn deja-vu is getting annoying). It wasn’t until Kepler finally looked at his (well, Tycho’s) data and used that to determine his theory (i.e. used the scientific method) that we understood how the Earth moves.
At some point you have to admit the opposition has no new arguments and get on with the task of teaching the next generation, reserving the Nobel Prize for whoever finds the black swan. Evolution reached this point sometime around 1920.
sorry
evolution is a religion too – pure dogma
don’t be afraid to deal with it
Maybe so, but that dogma is descended from wolfma.
No, evolution is science. Now science may be pure dogma, but it’s a pretty damn useful one.
Jane, what do you think “evolution” is?
The usual dictionary definition is a good place to start, from there you can elaborate, critique, conjecture in a myriad of ways. We have a fossil record that supports this; we have DNA comparisons that support it; we have instances in real time that support natural selection and adaptation.
Now, this does not destroy my belief in a divine creator; if anything it bolsters my religious belief — because as scripture even says: God is not bound to the temporal plane as are we (and science), which also creates the concept that there is no way that we (in our temporal reality) can explain God. This, at least for me, creates an even greater awe for the majesty that is creation and the divine — something so much more than what we can perceive and yet are intrinsically a part of (which, when you take scientific discovery into account, is a very mind boggling thing).
Jane, what do you think “evolution” is? . . . The usual dictionary definition is a good place to start,
OK, so you are saying evolution is change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift
I don’t think anybody is going to disagree that that happens. What is being questioned is whether it is capable of accounting for all the diversity of life and the occurrence of man. To posit the possibility is one thing. It insist that it be taught as indisputable fact to school kids is a difference matter.
Jane..
Please square this circle for me.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Gen. 1:27
Darwinian theory which postulates that all life originated from single-celled organisms within the primordial soup, which themselves were the result of a lucky combining of certain protiens theorized to have been present in said soup.
Are you created in God’s image, or are you the tail end of a long chain of random “accidents”?
Square the circle please. I am truly baffled by anyone who can claim to believe in both God and Darwin.
Evolution exists; there’s no other rational way to look at the skeletons embedded in the rock strata of the world. You can argue about the natural selection part all you like. In the 19th century, Darwinian evolutionary theory pretty well triumphed over Lamarckian evolutionary theory; in the 21st century, Lamarckianism is starting to make a comeback.
But evolution exists. I’ve been in museums, seen the bones, and talked with paleontologists. I’ve known them personally. The one I know best is both honest and ethical – I very much doubt he’s lying about the bones he has dug up.
The one I know best is both honest and ethical –
I have no doubt that he is and I don’t think he is lying but that doesn’t make him right in his interpretations. To make, and teach, definitive (dogmatic?) claims based on fossils is really an unwise thing. But if you want some definitive dogma, how about this: what we believe based on scientific evidence is going to be radically different three generations from now. It always has been and there is no reason to doubt that is going to change.
And that gets us to the issue at hand — what are the things that should never change regardless of contemporary interpretations of observations of nature?
Good definition, the problem being with what happens. What we see as evolution is more often then not adaptation. This means that all the genetic information was already present and only those with the specific swithches (known as alleals) thirved in a given circumstance. This would actuall be a loss of genetic diversity in a sub set; they survive better in highly limited circumstances like the Gallapagos finches. That is what natural selection is. The fossil record has inversions such as pliohippus being found in layers younger than its decendant the modern horse. Some finds turn out to be frauds. Some species show no decernable change for far longer then seem likley if everything is evolving only because they either dont need to adapt or they do so to match local circumstances (great white shark size) or are caused to do so by humans (dog breeds= intelligent design). The process called evolution involves a loss or corruption of gentic program but in order to be true as taught requires the addition or purposful modification. While the second option is compatable with Deism or a non-involved Greater something or another only prior is compatable with a deity free philosphy.
The bones don’t change. The interpretation of the bones may. Presumably, this second change will be consistent with the bones themselves.
If you need a God in your scenario, for Pete’s sake – evolution is as good a way for your God to create humanity as any other, and if you live your life in eternity, what’s a few billion years’ wait?
If you need a God in your scenario, for Pete’s sake
And that gets us to the point. If God exists that’s the reality and you would need Him as much as me or anybody. And that’s what this debate is about. It’s not about whether God directed man come about via evolution or by a special creation but whether it matters that He exists.
You seem to be of the mind that it doesn’t. That is silly.
Bill Lawrence suggested: “scientific evidence is going to be radically different three generations from now”
This is the main problem with teaching facts (“evidence”) on the ground. They become dated. Far more useful to present a position and then research which facts support it. High school students should be exposed to what we know about competing positions and taught how to discern the merits of each. Then we can even present evolution, creation, and even flat earth ideas with a positive result. Ideally, what we should be teaching is discernment, not facts.
Larsen said. “High school students should be exposed to what we know about competing positions and taught how to discern the merits of each. Then we can even present evolution, creation, and even flat earth ideas with a positive result. Ideally, what we should be teaching is discernment, not facts.”
I heartily agree with the sentiment. For that matter, in the interests of cultivating discernment and critical thought, it would be good to have one lecture on scientific fraud in all its various forms. (Climategate, anyone?) Pragmatically, I think the lack of available classroom hours would preclude having very much of this. But I also think that there would be huge resistance from the scientific community on this because they have a vested interest in maintaining a pristine, idealistic image of science (or should I say, Science) in the public eye. I think this is also one component of the push for teaching certain scientific dogmas, e.g. “evolutionary theory is settled science”.
After reading this string I thought it important to point out another example of scientific dogma that is so pervasive as to be taken for gospel among the majority of the geology community in the US. This being the Theory of Continental Drift. Over time this theory has evolved into an ad-hoc comboblulation of off-shoot ideas that have been postulated in order to explain observed data that do not match and/or contradicts the main tenets of the theory. There simply is not enough room to go into detail but I would encourage anyone interested to look into seperate ideas regarding Tectonic Expansion theory and Surge Tectonics. As a geologist, I was very skeptical at first but later became angered and felt betrayed that a respected geology school did not discuss the possibility of other tectonic earth models that have observed data that support these alternative theories.
I’ll bet every single person who reads this knows about Plate Tectonics and the movement the plates causing earthquakes and building mountains. Unfortunately there is a very large body of evidence that over time has eroded this theory but it is almost completely unknown becasue it does not fit the current accepted model with which many millions of dollars in research money is dolled out annually by the NSF and other entities. For far too long many of my questions regarding continental drift remained unanswered even by the elite professors who spent their entire career exploring this theory but yet refused to answer or even speculate because it would mean potentially throwing away a lifetime of work.
I know this is off tangent in many ways but it is another example of dogmatic scientific belief that has been perpetuated because scietific method, honest and open debate have fallen to pride and bruised ego. With any luck and divine providence ;’), 20yrs from now, the entire geologic world will have woken up to this additional theory and its merits.
Proverbs 22:6 Train a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not turn from it.
the Catholic Jesuit priest Francis Xavier created the motto:
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”
Both versions of this deep truth about human socialization refer
to a two-edged psychological sword; People will retain and act on
the behavior and beliefs learned in early childhood.
Mark twain summarized what a child should be taught about the Bible:
‘It contains much good advice for living, a deal of bloody history,
…and upwards of a thousand lies.’
Mark Twain also said: “When I was younger I remembered a great deal more – including a lot of stuff that wasn’t true.”
Evolution is how God made the world.
I disagree with a lot of individual points, but it’s yet another good essay by Zombie.
The basic points are valid:
1.) There’s way too much claptrap propaganda in the schools.
2.) The Left is bad news.
Zombie, Great stuff!
This is an absolutely critical discussion and your first two essays have given much and I would hope provoked much.
My degree in History (American Colonial and Early Modern Europe to Modern Europe). I have spent the last 15 years re-teaching history to my children because of the vile nonsense being pushed.
TSBE might have been a tad ham fisted at times, and yes some of the arguments are lacking in intellectual prowess, but they are heart felt and basically correct.
I am looking forward to your next essay segment.
R/The Mighty Fahvaag
I would also like to add, in regards to the separation of church and state debate: it is true that our Founders were influenced by Judeo-Christian thought as well as the Englightenment. However, I do believe that their inclusion of the First Amendment was twofold (and in retrospect, a very wise move):
It diminished the power of the State over religion (which is a good thing, when you consider over one hundred years later we see the communist revolutions and their abolishment of traditional relgions, putting the official state religion of atheism in its stead.
It also kept any one religion from excercising too much power over the State — which may prove to be a very valuable thing to have in the face of militant Islam.
To have conservatives chipping away at that concept(however well intentioned they may be) is perhaps not very wise, especially now.
Yes your secular state is only half as bad as Stalin.. only 50 million dead here. However the manner is even more evil… those fifty million were DIW… Dead In Womb.
All hail secular humanism.
Would you rather have a theocratic state? From what I have seen of those, well, you can have them if you wish.
And do not use abortion as a strawman: the secular state may allow it (or it may not; it hasn’t always been legal, and within our very secular state), but in a free society it is a choice — so it is the individual’s decision. Given my druthers, and irregardless of how I feel morally about abortion, I would prefer it stayed as much up to the individual as possible (whether they choose to or not, should be an individual choice — one which an outside party can only counsel them on, not command); the state has its hand in it far too much already.
Murder is murder, and killing babies is a choice of murder.
Likewise states without religion have, and are, murdering by the hundreds of millions. The only so called religion I see which may be worse is islam.
As for a theocratic state and preference, I would prefer a theocratic state more than the secular humanistic one like we have today. Likely we would be more free, as there seems to be no limit to the progressive/secular humanistic tyranny. Which should not come as a surprise I s’pose. As the progressive/secular humanism theology has no restraining moral values.. Like say Scripture or the Ten Commandments.
So you would have a theocratic state, much like Iran, but have it be Christian rather than Muslim? Again, I ask, which Christian dogma will you enforce and what would you propose to do with those who would refuse or be incapable of living within the parameters of this state?
Depends on what you mean by a “theocratic” state. In other words, do you consider Marxism and its derivatives (Leninism, fascism, Fabian socialism, Juche, Baathism, progressivism) a religion? It has many of the characteristics of a religion: prophets, a theology, holy books, a promise of eternal happiness. Pure originalist Communist Manifesto-type Marxism has no deity, but in practice, the head of state in a Marxian system becomes a sort of God-king. In North Korea, Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il are official deities; Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, and Josef Stalin (among others) were objects of official worship in their heyday; Hugo Chavez seems to be working toward this status. If anything, Marxism requires that more of its tenants be taken on faith than the Abrahamic religions: there is irrefutable historical evidence for the existence of King David and Jesus and Mohammed (whether you accept them as religious figures or not), but there is no objective evidence in history or economics for the proposition that dialectical materialism exists, or that it leads inevitably to a proletarian revolution and the withering away of the state.
I believe I already mentioned in the comments that communist countries abolished traditional religion…and then went about setting up an inverse religion (if you will) of their own. I cannot think of one totalitarian government that has not done this. I believe it comes down to obtaining as much power as possible over people’s lives — a totalitarian regime cannot abide its citizens placing a part of their lives in something other than itself, especially something so powerful as religious faith that teaches of something beyond the temporal.
So, no, Marxist-Leninism et al. are not religions in the traditional sense, but when applied they do try to absorb many of the functions of traditional religions in an inverse form if you will, even down to the rites and rituals, that are subverted into a new worship of the state.
I will not however, call it (or any sort of scientific theory) a religion — I think you give the opposition way too much power by allowing them that playing field. That arguement shouldn’t even be allowed: because then you are conceding that they have a right to consider it in the same light as actual religion…and it isn’t (that’s the argument that many seem to miss and it’s an important one). There have already been too many concessions — too much language has been subverted, and many on the right play right into it (Saul Alinsky rules — don’t argue them on a playing field of their choosing, and you are arguing them on a field of their choosing any time you allow the discourse to hold religion and science on the same field).
At the founding the First Amendment only applied to the federal government and some of the States had established religions. Massachusetts and Virginia are examples. It never was the intention (from Federalist Papers reading) to prevent religious thought in government. It was to protect religion from government influence. They felt that moral, religiously educated men were essential to a republic. The founders knew that governmental power ruins most everything it touches.
Mea Culpa. Spoke too soon. Waiting for more,
Btw, PJM editors somehow hid installment 2 for a couple of hours mid-day. Saw it once, then it disappeared. Thankfully someone apparently squawked loud enough and “Voila”, it’s back. Thank you, PJM.
A good series going here. It’s worth making the point, however, that 20th century Supreme Court decisions on what the First Amendment means for our current practices aren’t the same thing as the historical record of how the Framers saw religion and the state. Teaching the former as if it’s the latter would be as wrong as teaching the latter as if it’s the former.
The Texas conservatives are right in a larger sense. None of us is bound to accept, in his political thinking, the concept of the state sequestering itself from all religious expression. The Supreme Court does NOT have a long history of adducing that concept; it goes back no further than the 1940s. The concept is not, in fact, an accurate representation of the sentiments of the Founding Fathers. What it is is a modern trend in federal jurisprudence.
The political project of originalists is to demonstrate that much of modern jurisprudence is a deviation from the political ideas of the Founders. That description is separate from the question of whether you or I believe deviating from the Founders is a good or bad thing. It’s precisely the point of the originalists, however, that the Founders’ arguments, as laid forth in their writings, do not lead to the principles favored in some modern judicial rulings. The Supreme Court doesn’t have “the last word” on this; there IS no “last word” in a free polity. Our constitutional government is designed to give us recourse against even the Supreme Court. Political disagreement with judicial trends is not by any means politically meaningless.
It’s quite proper to reflect Supreme Court rulings on different subjects as Supreme Court rulings. Students should be taught about them. Students should NOT be taught that people who disagree with modern judicial principles are wrong about history. Those are two separate issues.
All true, but the textbook-framers in Texas have no more authority nor right to determine, according to their own interpretations and biases, what the Founders “meant” in certain passages of the Constitution, than does the Supreme Court. If that were to be the case, then any textbook anywhere could render its own interpretation of any section of law or of any Supreme Court ruling. They could, for example, say that schools have the right to be racially segregated, despite Brown v. Board of Education, because the Supreme Court “got it wrong.” Or alternately a liberal board of education could declaim in a textbook that the Second Amendment only applies to militias and not to individual gun owners, despite Supreme Court rulings to the contrary.
The point is that the textbooks writers should not be determining their own preferences or interpretations, but rather report what the status quo simply is or what history has happened, not what ought to have happened or what should be. The Supreme Court rulings re: the First Amendment, since the ’40s, are the binding interpretation of the Constitution, so that is what should be taught. If the rulings are later reversed, then the textbook can be revised.
Texas, along with the liberal left (needless to say), are trying to influence public sentiment via textbooks, rather than reflect reality.
Wrong, Texas has immanently more right to determine what is taught in Texas than does SCOUTUS.
Your argument places one “truth” ( and a decidedly progresive invention of late, well done J.E. ) as the real truth or in this case propaganda to be taught.
Once again the answer is simple. The money follows the child the parent decides where the child goes to school. And government decides nothing. Curriculum is the parents choice via where they educate their child.
zombie, some interpretations are simply stronger than others. the view that the founders were more interested in preventing an official state religion than proscribing religion altogether from civic life is probably more in line with the evidence than otherwise. it’s not an undecidable question. the standards of proof in historical argument are similar to those used in the courts. the commenter above has the stronger read on this example. the first amendment probably isn’t the best example you could’ve used. .02
I remember something about not preventing the free excercise therof being in the 1st. It would argue that even if the school shouldnt discriminate between majority religions when it comes to holidays, decorations, or designating prayers, that it is also entirely in line to allow a moment of silence to allow those who wish to, to practice.
Ok… a point of disagreement, and this isn’t an equivocation. The weakness in the premise of teaching the 1940′s and beyond version of things, without instructing about the founding intent leads to a serious case of legal entropy.
The drift removes both fact base and context for the decisions. That greatly reduces the possibility that some wiser court, more interested in the rule of law, will ever have the knowledge to overturn the offending legal precident(s).
Orwell’s prophetic “1984″ is spot on. He who writes the history owns the present and conducts the future. Our courts and government have suffered serious damage due to “Progressive” re-thinking and re-designing of our legal code. An accurate historical recounting of the such differences in philosophies is essential.
The problem with Zinn, and all other like “history” is that it cherry picks facts and event streams, and then demonizes anything that militates against those “facts”. This is pure Marxist theory put into practice. The notion is to artifically create dichotomies, and then favor the chosen/desired outcome. Marx lifted the Hagelian Dialectic; ended it where he wanted to, and then sold it to an elite who used it for their own purposes.
Maxist History and Economics ignored the infinite set of potential interactions (Chaos Theory as history… sort of an interesting way of looking at it… but that is another essay) chose a set of event streams, and arrived at some form of Utopia. The nice neat Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis to a workers paradise was completely false.
I told you all that so that I could ask you this: If you didn’t know the other stuff, how would you possibily figure out that Marx was wrong? (h/t to Ron White)
So that is the point of the book redesign. Our children have poor contexts for history. They have a heavily redacted fact stream, and an elite partisan instructional corps dedicated to shaping them by teaching them what to think. I prefer teaching my children TO THINK.
My hope is that a real discussion like this one (and no I don’t necessarily agree with some of your conclusions) will add to the intelligent reconstruction of objective contextual history, civics, government, and other social sciences. This is very valuable.
r/TMF
“Texas, along with the liberal left (needless to say), are trying to influence public sentiment via textbooks, rather than reflect reality.”
But that, Dear Zombie, is the very crux of the matter: the nature of reality itself. To a liberal, reality is subjective and personal, to a conservative, reality is objective and impersonal. Lets ask a basic question: “What color is the sky?” I have asked this question repeatedly; a conservative will say that the sky is blue, a liberal will say that it is every color of the rainbow, changes every moment, and who gives a damn?
To a conservative, reality has always been reality; it will exist before, after and outside of our own experience of it. To a liberal, there is no reality apart from the personal experience of it. A liberal says “Reality shall be subject to me”, and a conservative says “I shall be subject to reality”. There is no middle ground here.
Your complaint is the the TSBE does not reflect reality AS YOU SEE IT; from YOUR perspective. But a conservative would say that the TSBE is a political entity, and subject to POLITICAL realities. The fact that they were able to come up with educational standards that reflect any reality at all is remarkable and praiseworthy.
Why do conservatives so often use straw men to build up their arguments?
To a conservative, reality has always been reality; it will exist before, after and outside of our own experience of it. To a liberal, there is no reality apart from the personal experience of it. A liberal says “Reality shall be subject to me”, and a conservative says “I shall be subject to reality”. There is no middle ground here.
This is not what liberals believe, at all. Liberals understand that each individual has their own, unique interpretation of reality. There may be, and we hope there is, some underlying “ultimate reality”, but that’s a question to be debated in epistemology, and nobody has come up with a definitive proof of what that reality is for over 2,500 years. What we’re left with is using science (observations of phenomena through repeatable experiments) to develop scientific models describing reality, or at least the measurable phenomena of reality. All else is our individual experience of reality, which is shaped by our biological limitations, individual temperment, and unique life experiences. Two people may observe the same event and yet have completely different interpretations of what occurred, and how they feel about it. Even the kind of language people use makes a difference in how they understand events. Liberals recognize this and try to find the common ground people can agree on, which so far in history, is best determined by scientific observation and rational thought.
What conservatives are too often really arguing, is “there is only one reality, and it’s what I say it is.” Historically, conservatives have only been able to silence opposing views through violence – from the Roman Empire martyring Christians who opposed the official state religion, to the Catholic Church murdering millions of heretics, Jews, and pagans who didn’t see the world their way, to missionaries wiping out traditional cultures, and Manifest Destiny Americans exterminating Native “savages”. And no – I have to bring this up because someone always says oooh liberals killed millions of people – Stalinism and Maoism aren’t liberal philosophies. As my Dad taught me, “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” is the basis of the liberal mind – as is “Love your neighbor as yourself”
Keep in mind, there are two things that the First Amendment says regarding religion
1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2) Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Notice that the language changes in reference to this two items. Congress cannot RESPECT an establishment of religion, it doesn’t matter if it RESPECTS it positively, or negatively. However, Congress cannot PROHIBIT the free exercise of religion. It is purely a sanction against a negative impact. Congress, according to the plain language of the First Amendment, is well within its rights to PROMOTE the free exercise of religion.
And the drafters of the First Amendment demonstrated, in the very same passage, that if they want two things to have the exact same protections as each other, they know how to write an appropriate phrase: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
So I’ll side with the TSBE on this one. And, after reading many of the anti-federalist (not to be confused with the Anti-Federalist party, which emerged a couple years later) arguments on the Constitution, (the people who gave us the Bill of Rights, which didn’t include the person who wrote about “a wall of separation between church and state”), they would be horrified at the SCOTUS rulings on this subject.
Allow me to premise with appreciation for your series. The Austin American Statesman with its neighborhood subsidiaries is still propagandizing to influence results of the upcoming State School Board Election.
A few of your points disturbed the flow for me.
“The point is that the textbooks writers should not be determining their own preferences or interpretations, but rather report what the status quo simply is or what history has happened, not what ought to have happened or what should be.”
In a perfect world. But as is, publishers and authors do have ideologies, and work to produce a profit. And as you’ve established, socialism rules the public roost at present.
“So it seems to me that the critics have a valid point here: The TSBE was promulgating as fact its wishful-thinking interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than the Supreme Court’s more “official” interpretation. Which, to me, is not kosher.”
I had the same reaction to that as 9. J.E. Dyer’s response.
In politics, philosophy and education, choose the lesser of two weevils. The TSBE bargaining table of ideological curriculum requires conservatives to bring more than they expect to hold and take away from the deal. It isn’t as if the best candidates win primaries. Our “conservative” TX county snubbed the most literate conservative and voted for the “professional educator” candidate whose campaign spent the most, mailing brochures filled with grammatical errors.
Zombie, nothing is static. TSBE fluctuates per election cycle. Your excellent arguments influence the ground swell, benefiting voter education this month and next time around as the political fight to monopolize EDUCATION perpetuates.
“The board consulted no sociologists during the debate.” (3/11/10)
Sociology is a bogus socialist ideology incarnated to promote its own as a curriculum and profession under Wilson’s influence.
Regarding God and evolution, don’t try to build a fence around God. It isn’t as if the two concepts are incompatible. Dogma should be identified so as to understand its own confines in the claim for “truth”. On Darwinian evolution as it has come to be idealized by perfunctorily socialist dogmatic educators, it fails to appreciate the origin of life’s creative energy. For example, internationally renowned astrophysicist Bernard Haisch explained as the “God Theory” in his book. “I propose the alternative that the special properties of our universe reflect an underlying intelligence, one that is consistent with the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution. Both views are equally logical and beyond proof. However exceptional human experiences and accounts of mystics throughout the ages do suggest that we live in a purposeful universe.” Visit http://www.thegodtheory.com/
JE,
Thank you for raising these excellent points. It seems to me that many people do not understand the difference between originalism and strict constructionism. This is not a misunderstanding held only by liberals, but many libertarians as well, and probably also by a bunch of Biblical literalists. It seems terribly important that the Supreme Court make some effort to tying their decisions to the historical record, and making some effort at determining as best they can the intent of the Framers. High school students are old enough to not be simply taught that every Supreme Court decision that has been made is correct. The notion that a teacher in a public school encouraging his or her students to pray for a few moments at the beginning of each day is unconstitutional seems absurd to me. I would be interested in someone showing me how the previously mentioned situation violates the First Amendment.
NOTE TO FLAMERS: I am not a Christian, and I believe that evolution occurs by natural selection, as well as several other processes. I also do not believe that public school teachers should generally be praying with their students, but I absolutely cannot see how it violates the Establishment Clause.
Screw Howard Zinn’s America-bashing book, kids should read something more factual and less slanted.
“So it seems to me that the critics have a valid point here: The TSBE was promulgating as fact its wishful-thinking interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than the Supreme Court’s more “official” interpretation. Which, to me, is not kosher.”
Wishful thinking? Less so than yours.
To hang ones hat on “OFFICIAL” SCOTUS rulings is to be willfully degenerate and complicate in the very advancement of leftist secularism. That institution has been infiltrated long ago by the far left/progressives. You would inshrine their progressive “wishful thinking” over that of the ordinary citizen and locality.
Shame on you… shame shame.
The only government prevented from any religious rule is the federal government. Even considering “incorporation” of the 14th the First still reads that only Congress(feds) are prevented. Most States were founded by various Christian sects which were persecuted under the English Church.
That is the fact… jack.
Putting that aside you are most certainly not an idiot. Just a jackal who sells truth for his own goals. Fine but do not cloth yourself as a conservative than embrace liberal/progressives agenda via a corrupt SCOTUS and their rulings as the underpinnings of a conservative argument.
Your relationship with facts seems to be a bit…promiscuous.
The fact is that only five colonies: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were founded on religious criteria. The other 8 were founded as trading colonies.
Like it or not, the SCOTUS is, per its constitutional mandate, the final arbiter in the meaning of law. Their decisions are a valid and necessary topic for understanding the current political environment. Whether the decisions are right would be a interesting topic for a senior civics seminar.
@Jeff September 1, 2010 – 7:30 am,
Just an FYI the SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority from the Constitution for judical review. It isn’t there. Any time Congress wanted to they could put the check on SCOTUS. (please read over Article 3 on the Judiciary). According to Madison’s notes from the convention, it was talked about who would have the powers we now associate with ‘judicial review’ and the best answer they had was that was part of the role of the Presidential veto.
It was Cheif Justice Marshall who assumed the powers in the Mulbury v Madison case of 1803, and it was something of the natural conclusion to what had been going on in English Common Law for a generation or more. In fact Hamilton metions this possiblity I think in Federalist no 11, although Hamilton heavily discounts the danger of it.
It was Cheif Justice Marshall who assumed the powers in the Mulbury v Madison case of 1803,
Any relation to the singing Mulberries?
————-
At any rate, once Marshall assumed those powers, they have taken on the power of tradition, wouldn’t you agree?
The power of precedent, not tradition, and
the power is neither unlimited nor irreversible.
The progress of Progressive perversion of the Constitution
has reached its illogical conclusion in a reducio ad absurdum;
The current position of the Federal Government, as stated in
its preparatory response to the challenge to ObamaCare, is that
the Feds can pass _any_ law, that is to say, there is no such
thing as an unconstitutional law, which is plainly absurd.
I intend to take extreme pleasure in watching the reaction
of the Progressives as the states act to limit the power
of the State, before it taxes and legislates them out
of existence.
I was referring to the Court’s role as the final appellate court, which is from the Constitution.
IMO judicial review is a necessary outcome of the fact that there is only one law, and if two parts contradict one must be voided. Since the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” anything that contradicts it cannot be law.
“Just an FYI the SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority from the Constitution for judicial review. It isn’t there.”
Why do people keep saying this?
a.) Article VI says that “This Constitution. . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” By definition, this means that any government action not permitted by the Constitution must be null and void.
b.) Article III, Section 2, says that “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. . .” Obviously, the question of whether a law conflicts with the Constitution is a case “arising under the Constitution.” Since the judicial branch has the power to decide such cases, and since laws which conflict with the Constitution are null and void, this means that the judicial branch has the right to throw laws out, otherwise known as judicial review.
c.) Article III, Section 1, vests the judicial power “in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress. . . may ordain and establish.”
This makes the Supreme Court the top of the judicial system, and since the judicial branch has the power to nullify laws, this makes the Supreme Court the ultimate authority in the exercise of that power.
Now, it is true, as you point out, that Congress can choose to forbid the Supreme Court to hear certain cases. That doesn’t nullify judicial review in general, however; it simply gives Congress the right to decide which cases it will apply to.
As far as what the Founding Fathers thought, it’s often useful to know that. However, when the text of the Constitution is as clear and obvious as it is above, it doesn’t matter that they didn’t realize the full implications of it. The best way to read the Constitution is textualism; it is what it says on the paper. Only when the text is not clear do you start to get into original intent.
Well yes, Article 3 says ‘judical powers’ are vested in the court, but until 1803, Judical Reveiw WASN’T a judicial power. So while the courts have Judical power, the constitution is silent on what that was, meaing either they didn’t declare it because they thought it was obvious – and therefore we should look at the standard of 1787 where the idea was jury nulification (mob rules again), or it was neglected because it was August and hot and they’d already argued all summer. Either way, I’d argue that the idea of Judical Powers including Judical Reveiw in 1787 wasn’t there.
Section 2 of Article 3 talks about ‘The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution’ laws of the US, etc, but it doesn’t mention the states (1810 Marshall expanded the review power to them, no I don’t remember the case name I saw it in HS, but that was long ago). Anyhow, Section 2 is talking about jurisdiction, the rest of that paragraph and the 2 following are all about what sort of cases can be heard by the court based on who brings them and where they take place, not on is the law valid or not. Again doesn’t mention the idea of Judical reveiw, but that has been read back into it. Some would say it eminates from a penumbra.
For those who think that this was part of the Constitution as understood by the generation that wrote it, it wasn’t. The case result was shocking, the Congress at the time of the 1803 case went after one of the associate justices with a charge of impeachment in 1805 (it failed), and Jefferson began coming up with possible ammendments to prevent the court from abusing its new found power. His ideas failed to gain traction. BTW, that 1805 failure has meant no SCOTUS has been impeached since then, and guarantied SCOTUS would be independant. From a ‘rule of law not men’ it was a very good thing, except for the problem of not having the de jure authority to make such rulings. They now have a defacto power so >shrugg<
We are looking at it all with the frame of mind that 'of course we have to have judical review' and 'of course someone has to figure out if a law or set of laws are in conflict.' etc etc, but that is because we were brought up in a system long established that has done that.
And no I don't have a sensible alternative, I'll figure that out right after I build my perpetual montion machine, end all war, end all hunger,etc (ie can't be done). Al the alternatives I've thought about get back to the same problem – at some point the whims of some men may decide things that are simply…stupid (see plessy v ferguson or dred scott for examples that are bad). But then as it was said in 1787, if men were angels, we'd have no need for a constitution or the government it forms.
Note as it has been noticed, it was MARBURY v Madison not Mulberry v Madison. Must have fruit on the brain.
“…Fine but do not cloth yourself as a conservative…”
Uhh, I don’t think Zombie has ever “clothed himself” as a conservative.
Jane, there is no “extreme right”. That is just left wing fiction. What would “extreme right” be, anarchism?
This notion of an “tyrannical extreme right” is pure Marxist propaganda and Democrat electioneering. Whoever are you talking about? (and spare me the “right wing militia” nonsense–that is just 1990′s Democrat agitprop. There is no such think as a meaningful miltia movement.) Certainly, there is nothing about the BoE here that is “etrmeme right”. That is just silly
You really should not get you ideas about (non-marxist) America from her enemies.
There is also no “middle path”, at least not an honorable one. What is it with you so called “moderates” and you dream worlds? It is the relatvism between left and right is this article is odious, they are not co-equals at all. Some people, including zombue, are so addled by the decades of leftist propganda that they do not know up from down. Nothing is being done in Texas but an attempt to ever so slightly undo some of the damage the professional left has done.
The argument is nonsense. you middle path is just more of the same, eventually pushbg the country further leftwards. You=just cannot let go of your leftist indoctrination. There is no Third Way.
I do not know your age Zombie, but I will wager that you are under 45. This is why you cannot see the absurdity of youe argument.
There is really only the radical left and those who can remember who the country was before they took power and know that the nationust retrun to the truth if it ever is to be america again. Then there are you confused “moderates”. Zombie, your are sxprememly mistaken:’
The only problem in Texas is they did not take it far enough.
Zombie’s awareness of all kinds of minutia from the 1960′s makes it perfectly clear to me that he/she was around at that time, and it thus perhaps even over 60 now.
He/she argues from the kind of open-minded and free-wheeling mental processes that were encouraged then, but much less so now.
My guess is that you are not that much older than 45 – by the 80′s thought was much more constrained, simplified and generally discouraged, and it’s that kind of limit that seems to me to characterize your conclusions. Zombie’s examples, conclusions, observations on the other hand are wide-ranging and show a remarkable awareness of the varieties of political thought in the last 50 years.
there is no “extreme right”. That is just left wing fiction. What would “extreme right” be, anarchism?
No, “extreme right” would be people who want to incorporate explicit Christianity into our government, and impose explicitly Christian mores on every one. Given our traditional acceptance of Judaism I’m sure there would be an accomodation for Jews in an American theocracy, but it would be an unfree country which many Americans, Christian or not, would not want to live under.
Gabriel, you’re missing the point here. You’ve fallen for someone elses narrative. How many folk do you think there are who really
Maybe six or ten wackos total in the whole country? That’s not something conservative Christians want. We believe in personal choice and keeping government out of the pulpit. I realize that’s weird thinking to some, but the boogieman you see is a fiction of those who would manipulate your passions.
The imposition of religious mores into society as laws is not a function of the Right. The basic limited government stance of the Right disallows acceptance of fealty to an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent deity that controls all aspects of life.
Attempts to impose religion on the State are functions of Statism, particularly theocracy. Theocracy is not right-wing. It is a variant form of statism and is thus, technically, on the Left.
Again Jane, there is no “separation of church and state” in the 1st amendment. It merely state that the federal Government may not enforce a state religion. It says nothing at all about “protecting” the state or the citizenry from religion or banishing religion from the public sqaure. It is curious that you worry about n over powering religion for the Revolutionary war was know in the ruling circles of England as “the Presbyterians’ war”
This was understood quite clearly for 160 years. It is just a complete highjackingof the matter by the left that you think otherwise.
There was a time in this nation where you could not have serious responsibility unless you were a practicing Christian or Jew. No open atheist could ever have been elected. It was a much better nation then too, I can tell you.
Clearly we have to wipe aside this fiction of the “separation of church and state”, a phrase that is not found on our Constitution but IS found in The Communist Manifesto.
Correct, but I am sure a progressive SCOTUS will make a ruling contra-wise and a future Zombie will call that the historical truth all must live by or be derided by same as a “extremist righty’.
I suppose then all Americans should be Presbyterians?
Ok, to be serious: If you do not believe that the Founders did not take into consideration the excess that can be caused by state control of religion as well as the dangers that may come from a church controlled state, then I don’t think you give them credit for knowing history and other societies as well as they did. There was a time not long removed from the founding of this country, and well documented, when one religion had great influence over the affairs of state in Europe, and Islamic society was not unknown to our Founders. Perhaps I give them more credit than they deserve, but I believe they wanted to avoid that sort of thing as well.
If you will notice in my first comment, I mentioned that the hard left is further advanced and has more control over its end of the political spectrum than does the hard right, but I believe it is foolish to think that there are not people at the extreme end of that political spectrum as well (it is also probably dangerous to not consider the possibility). One should never say “never” about anything, nor is it wise to forget that extremes of any sort tend to foster some very bad things. Which leads me to ask? If you want religion and state tied together, which religion, which interpretation actually, would you choose? (not every Christian sect follows the exact same dogma — there are many variations on the basic theme) What would you do with those who did not wish to follow the same?
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”
–Patrick Henry
Oh yes, I never said the Founders were not influenced by Judeo-Christian thought, quite to the contrary. However, it very much comes down to the last statement of Patrick Henry — free will was granted; no one was forced to follow any particular religious sect. In the spirit of those same Judeo-Christian teachings compulsion was considered an error to be avoided — there is asking, and then there is forcing, as it were.
Mongoose, I think that you are making Jane’s point. Who is the extreme right? You, evidently see no one to the right of you, which leaves you…out there.
If Mongoose is your example of the feared and detested “extreme right wing” you’ve certainly overstated the danger to society from he and his ilk. It’s illogical to expect “erw’s” to waste time talking to you about this. You can’t have it both ways. Either Mongoose is a terrible, terrible person intent on forcing everyone in the country to worship his God and obey those commandments, or he is passionate about his point of view and eager to dialogue with those who oppose him. Simply calling him names is a simpleton’s ad hominem method of opting out of a conversation they’re losing. But I’m sure that doesn’t apply to you, Dwight.
left/right up/down black/white
since the garden of eden we are fallen. Liberal ideas are nice but do i want to support “Paul and Mike”(real names) who want to spend there life watching espn on the sofa with chips,or Conserative ideals (where i fall) self reliant giving (my money to those i see in need). not easy but we were/are (nov. 3 will tell) a great country.
“Evolution…should be taught in a scientific classroom (along with the Big Bang theory and the theory of relativity).”
Yeah, right. As if school children are going to understand the mechanics of Big Bang. The average pupil will take to concepts like quark-gluon plasma and baryogenesis like a duck takes to water.
I figure a day or so at fifth grade level ought to cover it.
Do not take my words and run with them like that; it makes no arguement for you. Of course a fifth grader will not understand the intricacies of any of these theories, that does not mean they cannot be taught age appropriate levels of science, nor that such theories should not be taught — or, you do not start out reading the Canturbury Tales in kindergarten but that does not mean you should never learn them when you are ready to read at that level, and you and I both know that.
This is what I know, we’re talking about K-12 education here, and it’s a complete and utter waste of time introducing topics like Big Bang theory at that level, because no K-12 kid is going to understand it (and it’s not going to get you anywhere, even if you do understand it, and it turns out to be correct).
All you’re going to achieve by bringing up stuff like Big Bang theory at a K-12 level is having a population that believes in evolutionary theory (the controversial parts), Big Bang and Relativity…without having the slightest idea what those concepts mean…which happens to be the case for most people I know, btw. They believe in Big Bang…only, they don’t have a clue what it is. They just believe it because someone at school told them that it’s true.
All you’re doing is replacing one faith based system with another one.
How do you manage to get a “faith” out of a scientific theory? (and by the way, there is no reason why you cannot present something such as the theory of relativity to a high school class in a language and at a level that they can at least grasp that there is such a theory and this is its main conjecture…and all of it without imposing scientific theory as a replacement for religious faith…which honestly discussions about religious faith are not part of a science curriculum, or shouldn’t be — if the nuns who taught me science in the morning and catechism in the afternoon can do it I’m pretty sure a public school ought to be able to).
But in your arguement, you are making the arguement for the Left: you are already acknowledging that science and religion can be stood on the same playing field (which is dangerous) and you are conceding that one has to win over the other. Isn’t that what the Left has been pushing all these many years? You’re giving them the win by conceding the ground you fight on — don’t do it!
“How do you manage to get a “faith” out of a scientific theory?”
I just told you how.
By using the word faith, which has diverse meanings, first in one sense, and then in another.
I have faith that, unfortunately, the media will continue for quite a while yet in presenting biassed reports on the pseudo-scientific hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic
global warmingclimate change; I have faith that many scientific theories which I barely grasp are actually based on sound evidence and honest calculations; I have faith in the general safety of prescribed drugs I purchase from licensed pharmacists, and in the likelihood that canned goods are not maliciously poisoned; I have faith in Hermione Granger’s likely enthusiasm for explaining the benefits of reading to her children; but, as for religious faith—apart from my faith in the Epicurean Tetrapharmakos,* the “four-fold cure”—I have no faith.same response and tactic as the wandering liberals
Thus it is proven. Thus it is killed.
sorry posted in wrong spot. * yay for threaded replies! *
“…complete utter waste of time…”
Au contraire mon frere.
I distinctly remember watching “a brief history of time”, the video, in 11th grade. That was the only Big Bang knowledge I was put; but, it likely changed my life – my passion.
There are these things called INSPIRATION and IMAGINATION. you should check them out.
At 17, I wouldn’t have minded trading class for a video on Creationism or ID (or anything for that matter). Yet, I do not know what purpose it would have served other than to INSPIRE me to go into the THEOLOGY or to DOUBT SCIENTIFIC REASON* (<– ah, that's the ticket isn't it), but then again it was a SCIENCE class; the implicit PURPOSE of which is to make aware of or foster the goings on in SCIENTIFIC fields of study and CAREERS (of which creationism and ID are, and will forever be, neither). There is no such thing as the Study of Creationism/ID. It is a 1-line declaration with zero scientific (physically measurable) value. Period.
"yeah, joe. Actually I became religious in my 11th grade physics class. No joke" or "yeah, science class was cool cause it taught me science is all relative and I don't waste time with that bs".
The game being played here is no more than make-my-ingroup-bigger. It is not about the children and their potential. It is selfish and derives from ignorance and insecurity. Full stop.
Gee, you wasted two classroom periods watching a pop bio of Steve Hawking, and you were Born Again.
Can’t tell you how impressed I am.
same response and tactic as the wandering liberals
QED
the amendment is simple. It begins with “Congress shall make no law” and goes on to tell what the law might be about, something ‘respecting’, that is, ‘having to do with’, the establishment of a church. Since it’s CONGRESS that might make the law establishing a church, the language implies that it is a “state church” that is being banned by the amendment.
IF CONGRESS MAKES NO LAW, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE AMENDMENT.
Kids praying in school? If congress did not make a law ORDERING them do pray in school, then praying in school is NOT a violation of the constitution.
religious activities on state-owned property? If congress did not make a law MANDATING the activity, the constitution is not violated.
It is the congressional mandate of state-church linked activity that is banned. NOTHING ELSE. It was never intended to discourage religion, or to artificially referee between the religions, guaranteeing religious equality. The point was to keep congress OUT of religion. They had left the Church of England, with its mandated tithing, which is the equivalent of a tax. Participate and pay, or go to jail. THAT is a state church, which is what congress was forbidden from making.
It was never intended that they ban any religious activity. Only that they abstain from creating a church.
Yep to D in D.
We went from no state established church to “separation of church and state”. Not the same at all.
Heck, is there even a Constitutional problem with a “state church”? If by state you mean State. Should Utah’s state Constitution permit it, they could make the L.D.S. its official church and the Feds shouldn’t be able to say “boo” about it.
As long as all citizens are free to get the heck out of Utah anytime they want. Move to another state and see what happens in Utah. And never forget…
“Perhaps the purpose to your life is to serve as a warning to others.”
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
I would recommend before spouting off about what is and isn’t Constitutional actually reading the whole thing.
This kind of thinking is exactly why Madison et al. were hesitant to put rights into the Constitution. They knew that people would take a look at the written text and immediately stop thinking about what their rights actually are. I don’t need a piece of paper to tell me what my rights are, and you infringe on them at your own risk.
“Perhaps the purpose to your life is to serve as a warning to others.”
Pathetic.
And if New York wanted to outlaw personal firearm ownership, that’d be totally cool with you too, right?
Better think that one through, bucko.
hmmm. Quite a bit of high-minded discussion in this thread. Many hairs are being split.
Some of it reminds me of pre-Civil War, pre-WWII and pre-9/11 discourse.
I like a good debate as much as the next guy, but when the barbarians are stealing the china and wiring the support beams with explosives, it may be time for a little bit more “robust” defense of the things that have made America the place we used to want to live in. There will be plenty of time to shape the cuticles later.
Most of us probably view education as one of the pillars of freedom. Nowadays, it’s more like an anchor.
Thank god for Texas. Pass the ammunition.
Zombie, your sense of balance is unique and has given you a real nose for the issues and how the right and the left play them out.
Wilhelm Reich, the one-time head of Freud’s Vienna clinic, booted out of both the psychoanalytical association for “over-emphasizing” libido theory and the Viennese communist party, got this strange dichotomy that fails to get solved over and over, generation after generation. Reich sided with the right as the more honest of the two sides.
Reich saw the right at its worst as pushing responsibility without freedom, while the left pushed freedom without responsibility.
The idea that religious freedom means complete separation of church and state (so that the secularists in charge of government can push their values) is complete crap. Political correctness is a value system. Environmentalism is a religion.
And that is the reason why I do not like to see the Church of Al Gore or the Church of PC worshipped by the schools either. It comes down to dissemation of ideas vs. indoctrination. I’m all for people learning as much as possible, and learning how to think critically for themselves (in however small or large the individual is capable of). That’s the only way I think you can get to a reasoned stance. Indoctrination always has enforced ignorance as its handmaid, and that cannot stand in a free society. We already have enough of it, and it has to stop.
That is why I support the Right, but I would really hope that they do not wind up doing the same thing as the Left has done; that is why it is imperative that the Right now follow the same path…the consequences are too great: by doing so, they could fail and give the Left victory…or they could succeed and merely take the place of the Left (which means the Left wins yet again).
now — not…bleh I should have proofread before posting
Ummm… no. Environmentalism is plain common sense: “Don’t sh!t where you eat.” Liberals include “Don’t sh!t where other people eat, either.” Not too hard to understand.
True conservatives are conservationists – stewards of nature, not despoilers of it.
Thanks, Zombie. This is good stuff. However, I think that your final analysis of the intent on the right is too generous. A significant fraction of the religious right wants to enshrine Christian theology in law. The undermining of the separation of church and state is in service of this.
Republican Presidents were in office for 20 of the 28 years from 1981 to 2009. These Republican Presidents were allegedly friendly towards the Religious Right. I saw no indication whatsoever of the undermining of the separation of church and state during this time. What you appear to forget is i) the Christian tradition of 2000 years of separate temporal and celestial authorities [render unto Caesar...] and ii) our political traditions: no established religion.
Disclaimer: I have never been a churchgoer.
Your opinion doesn’t cut it. Give us some links or citations, or your claim
is just another coo-coo bird parroting the socialist playbook. Christians believe government has a duty to impose laws and maintain order, but the composition of those laws is for the government to decide. What you claim is simply nonsense. Unless, of course, you have names and links. Would love to see them, btw, so please don’t take offense.
In a short list, religious right-wingers have tried to:
Enshrine religious documents (“Ten Commandments”) as the basis of secular law – when indeed it is not – the basis of English common law is “do what you will, without harming others”.
Succeeded in inserting a religious oath into the national Pledge of Allegiance.
Tried in various ways to have the state compel prayers in school.
Create federal programs to teach particular religious values (i.e. abstinence), despite any evidence such programs actually succeed in their objectives.
I could go on, but I have errands to run…
I generally enjoy the author’s writings on PJM, and I applaud the author’s attempt at balance in this series of articles. My biases: I am a christian and I generally accept the theory of evolution. I, along with perhaps most christians, do not have a problem reconciling evolution with my faith and theology. That said, I must take exception to some of the relevant opinions that the author offers. One is the broad brush that he uses to paint all those who have a quibble with evolutionary theory. I have personally met and conversed with creationists (and they come in many flavors). I have also read enough of the Intelligent Design literature to know that ID is not creationism.
“The debate about the reality of evolution is over.”
Careful — you’re starting to sound like Al Gore here. In real science, the debate is never over.
“Intelligent design, creationism, or any other euphemism you care to use to describe “directed evolution,” are not scientific theories; they are religious beliefs, and as such have no place in a science class.”
Conflating ID with creationism is disingenuous. From what I have read, ID is not so much a theory as a critique of aspects of existing evolutionary theory. The ID folks are scientists and are having a discussion about science in the context of science, and as such they should be allowed to have their say without being subject to censorship or censure in the scientific community. Ironically, the folks at the Discovery Institute, the home base for ID theory, would appear to agree with you to the extent that they do NOT promote teaching ID in the K-12 public schools.
“The scientific community takes an extremely dim view of any official in a position of power who tries to undermine the teaching of evolution; this is a make-or-break “litmus test” issue for most scientists.”
It is an unfortunate fact that those in positions of power in the scientific community have little tolerance for the unorthodox, and are ready to punish those who violate certain touchstone dogmas. One need only look at the evidence in Ben Stein’s documentary film “Expelled!”. (I assume the author doesn’t like Stein’s film either.) However, I seriously question the claim that making obeisance to evolutionary orthodoxy is a litmus test for most rank-and-file scientists.
“This one issue is sufficient all on its own to mark its proponents (generally identified in America as “socially conservative Christians”) as overly partisan and unqualified to participate in discussions about school curriculum.”
Way too broad. I’ll excuse that as rhetorical hyperbole on the author’s part.
To summarize: ID is not creationism. It is a scientific discussion. I would agree with the author and the DI folks that ID probably should not be taught in the public school science classroom (except perhaps, at a teacher’s discretion, a brief mention just to say that one can Google “intelligent design” or other keywords at home if one wants to see what the fuss is all about). The main argument, in my mind, is the lack of time. There is not enough time in the school year to teach all of the mainstream, currently accepted scientific material, much less explore the minority theories and all of the areas in science where there is controversy and debate. I do think we do students a disservice to give the impression that controversy does not exist in the sciences, but it is not a fact that needs to be dwelt upon.
Perhaps the answer lies in allowing science teachers to field questions (in a non-biased way) about ID, should it be brought up in class?
From my own experience there were discussions about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in the classroom (although I was an English composition teacher, not science). I welcomed such discussions,and it was incumbent upon me to lay out the pros and cons of each stance with as much knowledge as I had on the issues while encouraging the students to look into it more deeply (at they could report back to me what they had found) in order to give my students something to think about — plus it turned them into better researchers and better writers, which was always a plus (made the classroom more enjoyable for me as well — hopefully for them as well). Now, I was teaching high school level students, and there is no way you could go as in depth with younger children, but indoctrination of the very young must be avoided in order for them to participate fully at a higher level. For the young I think you should ground them in solid basics and not indoctrinate, encourage their curiosity and love of learning, so when they are older they are ready to delve into such things as this.
This also points to a crux of the problem: if you have teachers who are bent upon standing at the lectern and telling students what they should and should not (I’m not talking about rules of the classroom; I’m talking about what they believe students should regard as truth or untruth with no questions asked), then you run into difficulties that no amount of textbook revision can cure. This is, as I have witnessed at least, a concern.
Hear, hear!
As a parent, I am frustrated… for example, one of my son’s seventh grade classes last year was World History. I helped him study for a test in a chapter covering subjects such as the Magna Carta, and other past documents, up through the Constitution. The subject was not U.S. History, so I didn’t expect to see much on the U.S., and I wasn’t disappointed that there was only one paragraph about the Constitution and one sentence about Thomas Jefferson. What irritated me was one of the questions in the study guide at the end of the chapter. Instead of asking something like “What contributions did Thomas Jefferson make?” or “What was his role?”, it asked “Why do some people feel that Thomas Jefferson was a patriot?”, the implication being… that there is not only a debate going on, but that the “some people” are the minority. It tries to plant the idea in young minds that a majority of people have a negative opinion of Thomas Jefferson.
In another class, he had to do a paper on global warming (prior to IPCC shenanigans becoming public). He was not allowed to bring any of the class materials home and when I asked him why, he said they didn’t have enough copies to go around. Unfortunately, I didn’t follow up with his teacher to see them. This year, I intend to be much more diligent checking into both of my sons’ homework and textbooks.
I believe in evolution, but then I was taught evolution from grade school on. The Congregational church didn’t adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis so I never viewed these two concepts as being mutually exclusive. Still…evolution is still only a theory (albeit a rather convincing one). Creation and “intelligent design” can be taught in churches and the home. Schools should teach only scientifically valid theories. That said, they should NOT teach AGW dogma (which is religion). Evolution is a pretty sound theory backed up by over a century of rigorous scientific investigation. Ultimately it is probably unprovable and there are significant gaps in the theory (like the time necessary for natural selection to have brought us to our current state of biology). So it is appropriate to teach evolution as a theory.
But what about AGW theory? It is currently being taught as FACT when it’s not even a good theory.
I couldn’t agree more about the comments regarding revisionist history and social studies.
Sorry Zombie, and we’ve gone over this on another board years ago when I went by a different name. You bring your own biases to this discussion and it will go nowhere. Math and reading are one thing – philosophy and biology quite another because people start from a completely different perspective. There are smart people on both sides of the spectrum that will never draw the same conclusions. While I might appreciate the effort of moderation you attempt to bring to the discussion, the fact is that you will always fall on the academia, leftist side of the spectrum about the conclusions of biological science, and I will still believe God has directed the entire path that can’t be explained by a theory. The truth is, possibly the most common phrase I found in my medical school textbooks was, “Yet to be Determined” or “Unknown”.
No, it’s not. And before I am accused of being a Fundie, or Creationist, or an ID proponent, or some other pejorative that I invariably hear here and elsewhere, I took the same classes of biochemistry, and biology, and chemistry, and physics that everyone did and maybe more than most – more than enough to get ‘A’s and into med school. I’ll assume I understood the subject material. To say that random mutation then leads to this, and this, and finally this is in my opinion sheer speculation without a shred of what first defines science – rational skepticism. You simply can not fill in the holes, and I wouldn’t even attempt to convince you of a Creator. And that is what the real argument is here. It’s not ignorance and I am fully aware you are grounded in the sciences. But me and millions of others that disagree with your assessment. You’re fooling yourself if you don’t realize that and committing the same error liberals do when they like to quote opinion. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be a huge split in Texas. And unlike what the MSM and possibly you would like people to believe, not all of these people are the yokels.
Geneticists are only now determining there is much, much more to natural selection than mutation and I would be happy to provide a recent link or two if need be – I should add they are not an easy read. But it won’t change the steadfast opinions of anyone.
What we ought to work on is simply splitting the camps and allowing parents to decide what’s the best methodology for their kids. I’ve had personal experience with my own child concerning teaching the “theory” of evolution as completely unnecessary to be successful in hard sciences (besides answering the questions the way you demand they be answered because you currently control the curriculum), and she was able to not only obtain entrance to medical school, even scored in the top percentiles for entrance.
I say if you can create one science book, you can create two. Trying to fit mindset into a nice one size fits all biological school model, force feed the parties who adamantly disagree with the conclusions without first answering the basic questions which can’t be truthfully answered? Both futile and a waste of financial resources. I know there are many who believe they can separate the science and still believe in God. Power to you. I never could and millions of educated individuals can not.
The fact is that the argument delves into life’s most complex questions and most basic and heartfelt tenets, and in the end nobody will be happy with the results of one size fits all.
I don’t believe the author mentioned anything about gene mutation. I know where you are going with your argument as I’m familiar with all the creationist propaganda, but it is totally irrelevant to the fact that variation, heredity, and selection, and therefore evolution, are real phenomena. The means of variation are not important.
Feel free to post links to research you feel disproves evolution.
By the way, you are exactly the type of person who is hard at work converting otherwise sane people into leftists with all this creationism bullshit.
Amen!
Got the fortitude Zombie to post my reply? Or does this one fly off in academia infinity too?
Typical and predictable. I wish I hadn’t been so tired last night Moke. I would have written your retort for you before you posted. You guys must boilerplate these threatening responses – irreligious academia masquerading as wisdom, speculation masquerading as theory, always with the tacit threat of running left. ZZZZZZzzz….
Run. Because you Moke and your esteemed author are exactly why millions of us “Fundies” you discount without experience, mock with your wine glass tipped behind closed doors, and use for political purposes at your discretion like the elitists from the Democrat party do every two years, have about had it with your academia horsesh*t masquerading as fact. You’re AGW with a McCain bumper sticker, rolled your eyes at home schooled or the Christian educated until our kids started blowing away your brightest when matching wits, and both of you couldn’t define Creationist if we wrote the definition for you. And I will stake my life we understand your lot more than you understand us. You want to talk about clueless?
Now I don’t mind the religious mockery under the guise of your “intellect.” Who cares. What does piss me off is that you think the millions of us who disagree with your educational assessment are too stupid to understand the real reasons for your position. And worse, you invariably grovel to get us ‘dumb Creationist folk’ to the polls every two years in October thinking we will forget about the daily slam with the wink of an eye. Now that is insulting…
Just for a little background tex, I have a degree in CS and physics from MIT, so I have a little bit of insight into why so few of my peers will even consider voting for anyone on the right.
“You guys must boilerplate these threatening responses”
It’s not some big conspiracy, simply the truth.
“You’re AGW with a McCain bumper sticker”
I am not AGW, I am moke. AGW is horseshit. and McCain a socialist. I only vote for people who support life, liberty, and property.
“rolled your eyes at home schooled or the Christian educated until our kids started blowing away your brightest when matching wits”
I’m in favor of homeschooling first of all, but I don’t recall meeting even a single home schooled person at MIT.
“What does piss me off is that you think the millions of us who disagree with your educational assessment are too stupid to understand the real reasons for your position.”
It appears that you are not getting it. No one cares if you want to believe in creationism. No one cares if you want to teach your own kids about it. However, when you try to grab the levers of power to force other people’s children to learn creationism, that is where reasonable people have a huge problem.
“And worse, you invariably grovel to get us ‘dumb Creationist folk’ to the polls every two years in October thinking we will forget about the daily slam with the wink of an eye. Now that is insulting…”
Who me? I don’t care who you vote for. I certainly don’t vote for republicans, all the good candidates get run off by the RINOs. Like I said before, I only vote for people who support life, liberty, and property. If that’s the constitution party, or the libertarian party, or the conservatives I don’t care. I don’t care that my guy might come in last place either. I’ll only vote for someone I think is good.
Sigh.
‘Random mutation’ is constant. It happens all the time. You have random mutations that make you different from the two people whose DNA combined to make you.
Random mutation isone of the processes whereby changes are introduced to an organism. If those changes help that organism breed more than it’s fellows natural selection may spread them and cause specialization and possible speciation.
Other things can induce genetic changes, but mutation is, perhaps, the most common.
However, evolutionary theory is open to alteration. As we know more about the process, the theory will change and expand. It is even possible that some evidence will come and cause us to throw it out entirely. And, if that happens, we will. That is how science works.
“A significant fraction of the religious right wants to enshrine Christian theology in law.”
I think a couple of the Ten Commandments have already been enshrined in the law.
Zombie,
I won’t argue the merits of evolution versus intelligent design with you, but I will ask this: What if both are wrong? I tend to believe that, as both sides have egregious inconsistencies. In science, when you have to make additional assumptions to support your theory, your theory is wrong. Both creationism and evolution through natural selection require substantial assumptions.
Just for giggles, read Robert Felix’s “Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps” A fascinating read and food for thought. Magnetic reversal=radiation=genetic mutations=evolutionary leaps. It would explain why few of the intermediary fossils have been found that would support evolution as it is currently taught.
I always super _much_ preferred classes that did NOT grade on a curve. I always had the feeling that grading-on-curve had this icky sense or smell to it. Later, when I became politically aware, I realized this was akin to Liberalism.
\
I would say I worked “harder” at them as I felt less was up to my own determination (I have always felt the most serentity and clarity (least anxiety) when my future was up to me – like say camping etc. – I know I’m wierd), but that would be redundant, and it made no difference; always did my best.
The curve reminds me of humanity.
Grading on the curve reminds me of welfare, redistribution, and Lib/Progressivism (‘equality’ of outcome);
It presupposes the outcome. – a naughty naughty thing to do.
you must be a statist because you’ve completely missed the point of education and learning. it is to facilitate our kid’s independent, efficient and happy functioning in the real world. how well they function is a function of how well and truely they understand how nature (philosopy, physics, mathematics) and human society functions (governance, economics, history, religion and God). it is self-evident philosophically that any statement made by a teacher is either true or false. the best teachers in my experience were the most knowledgeable (knew and could demonstrate what is provably true, self-evidently true or at least inductively supported) and unbiased (i.e., knew the difference between truth and the possibly un-true, unknown or unknowable). they could discern what was non-controversial, i.e., accepted as true (factual or self-evident or common sensical) and what was controversial (i.e., where one side is wrong and to inform the student that he/she must undertake his/her own study to determine which was the right, and being capable of teaching the kid how to undertake that study). for example. if you want to learn the true meaning of a constitutional amendment. present the amendment and the federalist and other founder’s writings of the time concerning the amendment in the context of the meaning of the words at the time to the student. easy. then the meaning of the first amendment becomes crystal clear but this was never done during my schooling. the constitution wasn’t even taught. i had to educate myself. any decision on the implied power of judicial review and interpretation is by definition controversial. therefore it is misleading and confusing to use SCOTUS interpretations to teach the true meaning of the constitution. that is the proper province of law school. this is why my kids have been home and private schooled to this point. hopefully i can keep on making enough money to pay my kids tuition and the CA public school teacher club dues (i.e., state education taxes).
Evolution is as incompatible with Christianity as Islam. In the grand scheme of things, the differences far outweigh the similarities.
Evolution is completely compatible with Christianity as long as the Christian doesn’t absolutely insist that the word “yom” means “a period of twenty-four hours”. Unless you’re talking about the kind of evolution that absolutely insists that The Big Bang happened all by its own self and that there’s no way that there’s any other possibility.
As a Catholic, I get nervous when folks want to return to the bad old days when Protestantism was taught in school.
Evolution is a fact, except that no one has ever observed one creature becoming a second creature.
Except for that it’s a scientifict fact.
No theory of evolution requires a creature to turn into another creature. They suggest it is an inevitability that some lines of descent will become unable to breed with each other, and that each such line of descent will be better suited to their respective circumstances than either any other line of descent is or than their common ancestor would be.
They correct as far as that goes, and creationism is supernatural BS.
It’s amazing that, at one time, the view that Texas is being chastised for was the view of most of our nation and was considered ‘normal’. Now we are seen as radicals. If more people don’t stand up and fight, our country will continue to slip away along with our ‘right-wing’ values.
It is interesting how quickly the mood and attitude of the country has changed.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, Approved by the Senate and Signed by Pres. Adams, June 1797
Also, the evidence in support of evolution by natural selection truly is a mountain: tens of thousands of experimental studies (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=experimental+evolution&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=10000000000001), tens of thousands of comparative studies, and an overwhelming concurrence between theoretical predictions and later discoveries (e.g. Birds are dinosaurs based on morphology showing common ancestry. Prediction is that we will find feathered dinos. Prediction born out).
And George W. Bush proclaimed that “Islam means peace.” Both Bush’s and Adams’ statements were diplomatic sops to their Moslem audience in order to defuse tension, and should be taken with a large grain of salt because of it.
Picking and choosing which quotes of the forefather’s you agree with? Nice.
In the declaration of independence the reason explained by the founders were based on the rights “endowed by their creator”
So I would say that bases everything we believe as the bedrock of our founding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11
The Treaty of Tripoli (1796-97–there were later ones as well) was reviewed in the 1930′s as part of a general effort to more fully understand our treaties and our rights and obligations under them. As part of this, an expert was brought in to translate the Arabic version of the treaty, which was the original version and what was signed by the representatives of both sides. His conclusions were that: a.) in general, the English version that was presented to Congress as the “official” translation of the treaty was very poorly done, and b.) in particular, Article 11 simply *does not exist* in the Arabic version. The text found in the place of Article 11 in the Arabic version is a letter to the Pasha of Tripoli (the actual signer of the treaty) from the Dey of Algiers (the Pasha’s liege lord or local equivalent thereof, who apparently pushed the Pasha into making peace with the US). Once the various flowery greetings are eliminated, all it basically says is “if you treat the Americans nicely, they’ll treat us nicely too.” The Arabic version skips from Article 10 to Article 12, which implies that something was left out, but the author of the study is unable to find any explanation for why the text should differ so greatly between the two versions.
OK, a couple of things you left out of your article, either through ignorance of the past or perhaps lack of space.
1. The Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state. It prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. At the time of the approval of the Constitution, a majority of the states HAD state sponsored churches. Antidisestablishmentarism has a meaning. Look it up. I am personally glad we no longer have state churches, but it is a choice, NOT something in the Constitution. (You may say that if the USSC SAYS it is in the Constitution, then it IS in the Constitution by fiat, but I hardly think we want to teach our children that we are in the final analysis ruled by the USSC). And there are more than a few things the USSC has decided are in the Constitution that need to be revisited.
2. The bugaboo. Evolution. First, I agree that neither young earth creationism nor intelligent design nor any other religious belief should be taught in the classroom. Church is the place to teach religion. BUT. When teaching the THEORY of evolution, be sure to mention all the issues. The lack of any proof of speiciation. The problems of evolution of complex systems such as eyes, that natural selection would seem to prevent, rather than encourage. The separate but related issue of the beginning of life. Do not teach what you cannot prove as fact.
Most of the rest I can agree with or live with. T. Jefferson was certainly a thinker on the same level as those mentioned, but I also didn’t see Bismarck or others who could have been mentioned.
Good post. Other people are saying similar things, but I think your’s was one of the better ones.
‘Religious conservatives on the board killed a proposed standard that would have required high school government students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”’
That should be slapped down, because it simply isn’t true. The people who created America DID NOT bar government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others. It simply isn’t true, and it shouldn’t be taught.
As far as evolutionary theory goes, much of it can be demonstrated to be true by experimentation, but some ideas (like speciation) have NOT been demonstrated to be true, or even possible, by experimentation, and speciation is NOT a proven scientific fact. Personally, I wouldn’t waste a whole lot of time teaching evolutionary biology at a K-12 level, because it can’t be proven (or, at least things like speciation can’t be proven), it doesn’t have much utility, and most people are bored out of their minds by it anyway. However, if you’re going to teach it…tell the truth, and learn to live with the fact that ideas like speciation are accepted on faith, not because they’ve been scientifically proven to be true.
Same thing if you want to teach the creation story in Genesis. Seems like a waste of time to me, but if you’re going to do it, don’t claim that it’s scientific fact…’cause it ain’t.
Tom wrote: “I also do not believe that public school teachers should generally be praying with their students, but I absolutely cannot see how it violates the Establishment Clause.”
These days it violates the “common sense” clause. Humans, being what they are, it is safer to not have teachers have anything to do with prayer. Even sending a student down to the principal or having him suspended for “disrespecting” (in so many possible ways) the moments of silence is asking for trouble. For what it’s worth, Jesus also criticized “praying in public” Yes it is a problem that the taking all religious observance out of the classroom has gone to ridiculous lengths, as any sweeping rules often do, there should always be common-sense exceptions, but both religionists and anti-religionists keep pushing for all they can get or take away.
I think that Zombie is trying to get us out of this battle. The God of our Founders seems so different from the God of the New Testament, where it seems as if none of the characters involved including Jesus imagined that a GOVERNMENT would be founded on Christian Principle OR have Christianity as its official religion. Rome and Constantine eventually changed all of that, but the contrast to me, is still bizarre. Mormonism is criticized as being a specious religion because it was revealed in America, not all that long ago. Whereas, the true religion is what? Jesus’ (as he is quoted) version, Constantine’s version, Thomas Acquinas’s version, Luther’s version, Jonathan Edwards’ version John Adams’ version, Jerry Falwell’s….? Ah, diversity!
The ridiculousness of Frank’s thesis was evident as soon as one looked at it from the other side? Why would very well-to-do places like Beverly Hills and Manhattan vote Democratic, against their interest? Why are conservative Kansans incomprehensible, but liberal lawyers and multi-millionaire celebs perfectly understandable.
It’s just the old “heads I win, tails you lose” game. Economic interest is not what Frank is about, what he’s after is putting down anyone who doesn’t agree with his politics.
Obviously, there is more than naked economic calculation going on in both Kansas ans Beverly Hills. And Frank’s thesis disappears in a puff of reality.
Never understood why WSJ brought him on. If they wanted a liberal voice to balance their editorial page, there were and are far better out there. Maybe he came cheap?
That folks are still having this debate, serves as an indictment of government operated schooling. I call for the separation of school and state. Secularists can then choose their schools and believers can choose theirs. Neither will agree with the other position but the public debate will subside, along with the law suites.
Amen, amen!!
Everybody gets the first amendment wrong. “Congress shall pass no law…” That says congress cannot pass a law respective of religion amongst other things. Not respective of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam or any other religion. NONE. And who does it restrict? CONGRESS! Not your local city, state or county government. If the founding fathers wanted religion out of everything they would have said so. Yet congress passes a law respective of religion every year (well most years) and no one says anything about it. It’s called “the budget”. It has money for churches and chaplains for the military. Why hasn’t the ACLU fought about this one instead of stupid fights about whether it says “In God We Trust” on our money or if someone says “Under God” in our pledge allegiance? “Congress shall pass no law…” plain and simple. As a true atheist, not one of the false atheists who rail against any mention of God in any government action, writing or anything, I find this puzzling. Oh yes, false atheists are the ones who are so afraid they are wrong that they hate any mention of religion. It terrifies them that they think they could be wrong and will burn in hell when they die. Any true atheist isn’t bothered by someone’s religion, it’s simply another aspect of their character. When I say the Pledge of Allegiance I am simply silent when those words are spoken by others who ostensibly believe them. It’s important to get the meaning right, to understand what words really mean. Both sides have this one wrong and that’s the tragedy, just as Zombie says.
It seems to me that Texas, just because of its size, has been pulled into a National discussion. More and more people move to Texas every year because it is a more desirable place to live than other states. It has cheaper home values, less unemployment, lower taxes and countless other advantages at this point in history (or whatever other reason people continually move here).
I really don’t like that what Texas decides is best for their students infuriates so many in other states just because Texas has so many students in their school systems. Maybe if other states could replicate what Texas does in other areas of their state, then maybe their populations would increase and therefore have a better chance of affecting textbook curriculum.
What gets me about this whole national liberal outrage vs. TSBE issue is that Texas is looking out for its own–the way the original framers of the Constitution wanted. They wanted powers to remain in the states that didn’t need to be national. Should we all have to learn Texas history, or California history or Michigan history? No, but at the same time, what people value in the Northeast are not the same things that people in the South, Southwest, Northwest, or Midwest value either. Can Texas help it (or should they care) that textbooks are largely based on what they decide is best for their students. If other states are so upset by what Texas decides to teach its students, then maybe they should look at finding other options.
But somehow a state issue has been pulled into the National discussion just because the liberal left just can’t stand that Texas is doing better than most and is looking out for its own.
Zombie, We know you (and the Supremes) are wrong about the intent of the 1st Amend. because in 1791 9 of the 12 new states had established religions which weren’t banned by the 1st.
In addition, in the 1870s Speaker of the House James G. Blaine offered an amendment to http://blaineamendments.org/Intro/BAtext-US.html to the Constitution banning established churches in the states and preventing tax funding of sectarian (i.e. Catholic) schools. Unless he was dumb, that must have meant that in 1875 no one thought that the 1st reached the states. The amendment lost by 4 votes in the Senate.
Recall that the ERA was intro’ed in the 1920s and finally defeated in the ’70s.
People used to think that you had to amend the constitution to get what you want. Now, the Left uses judges instead. Much easier.
You can teach both the facts and the SC’s interp as separate issues.
While I am clearly further right than you (persoanlly – government-wise, I am very libertarian), it’s nice to see someone give it to the right good and hard and still realize how much worse the left is. I think the Texas board (and conservative groups in general in education) would be MUCH more reasonable if they could trust the left to act and advise in good faith.
I do have to quibble with a couple of things, or at least try to better inform you about right-wing opinions and reasons:
First Amendment, Church/state stuff. Well, considering that many SCOTUS decisions are obvious BS (Kelo for a simple, recent, well-known example), I don’t really give a crap what they say. Sure, I understand that from a LEGAL standpoint that is what prevails. From a “how things should be” and “how I teach my children” standpoint, SCOTUS can bite me. I am not remotely alone in this. Saying that 2+2=17 does not make it so, not matter how many titles you have after your name, and some of their decisions about the meaning of plain text is at least that bad.
Evolution. “The debate about the reality of [X] is over. [X] happens… The evidence is beyond overwhelming and is conclusive.” Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, anthropogenic global warming. Yeah, settled science. I will not even try to convince it’s actually wrong, but here are two important facts that might help you understand why a large number of people remain skeptical: 1) evolution was clung to with much greater conviction than the evidence warranted for a LONG time (and now, well, they’ve managed to come up with enough evidence – see global warming for why that might need some scrutiny), and 2) I have personally spoken with someone (and read claims from others) who have had scientific articles rejected from major publications because they didn’t line up with current evolutionary theory, despite being scientifically rigorous and having no agenda (indeed, the guy I spoke to was an evolutionary believer and was as surprised by his results as anyone). Whether the theory of evolution is correct or not, put those two points together with what happened with global warming, and you get some SERIOUS skepticism.
There is absolutely no comparison between evolution and anthropogenic global warming.
Evolution-through-natural-selection is a basic mechanism of the universe. It is not only self-evidently true, it is confirmed by 150 years of evidence.
AGW is a passing fad. The evidence is flimsy. Just because the AGW defenders use similar absolutist language in order to cloak themselves in the mantle of authority, doesn’t mean that every other established fact in science gets thrown into doubt as well. You might as well say, “Yes, you may insist that the sky is blue, but that madman over there insists in a very similar way that the moon is made of cheese — so how can we know that you’re telling the truth?”
Jesus also criticized “praying in public”…
Context
Hypocrites demand respect for pious self righteousness.
He admired the honest “sinner’s” public prayer for forgiveness.
The incident being quoted was set within Caesar Augustus’ Roman Empire.
Jesus was not criticizing public worship in the least. He taught sincerity, to approach God in all humility, to commune with God in private, as in the desert, without society’s distractions. He began teaching his own lessons in his religion’s synagogue, taught us “how” to pray in public (“Our Father,” The Lord’s Prayer), and concluded his mission reminding his disciples that God’s Spirit would be wherever two or three gather together in His name, and reminding his accusers that he taught publicly not in secret, never preaching insurrection to Rome.
On evolution, the list from Zombie is nothing more than a typical set of talking points from the evolution defenders at all cost. Anyone who has spent some time looking into the evolution controversy with an open mind would know the lack of intellectual honesty of the radical evolutionists. “Evolution through natural selection” (ie “microevolution”) is nothing more than adaptation to the enviroment. That ‘s a “trivial” fact that no one disputes. The deception is using the the evidence of “micro evolution” to justify macro “creative” evolution story. It is time to reject the evolutionary religion of the Darwinian church for the sake of real science.
Until the 14th Ammendment (actually, cases that incorporated the Amendment to teh States) States COULD establis religions and some did. Connecticut and Massachusetts are examples.
“So it seems to me that the critics have a valid point here: The TSBE was promulgating as fact its wishful-thinking interpretation of the First Amendment, rather than the Supreme Court’s more “official” interpretation. Which, to me, is not kosher.” Actually they’re not promulgating anything, they simply rejected an amendment which was clearly meant to push a secularist liberal agenda. They didn’t include their own definition of the First Amendment in the curriculum as you seem to be suggesting. All of the points you brought up are highly debatable, there’s certainly no reason to call the entire board “extremists” on those basis. Another example, “propaganda” is used in all politics, so using it to refer to the entry into WW1 isn’t really saying anything except to use a pejorative term in regards to the US. It’s not like the board claimed propaganda wasn’t used. Text can be changed without reading the most extreme meaning into every change, updating the curriculum is after all the board’s job, and anyone can always pick on any change of wording they make. The last thing that really annoys me is that you keep repeating that the board wants to introduce Creationism to schools. It takes a majority vote on the board to indroduce anything, and clearly the votes for Creationism aren’t there, so you can hardly say the “board” is trying to do that, at most it’s a few people. I’ll also point out that the members furthest on the religious right have already lost the election, so please quit repeating your ill-founded assertion.
Solutions?
Easy home schooling.
Or if not, demand to sit in your child’s class and argue with the commies. Or teach your child to argue with the commies. Sit in the principal’s office until they get tired of you. Make a pest of yourself. Characterize the curriculum as commie. Annotate the textbooks. Write statements for you child.
Note that “Race to the Top” funding includes a national curriculum. Get you state’s Ed Sec to screw up the application so you won’t get the money. Worked for NJ.
#47 losantiville said:
Note that “Race to the Top” funding includes a national curriculum. Get you state’s Ed Sec to screw up the application so you won’t get the money. Worked for NJ.
Texas was one of a handful of states that declined to participate in “Race to the Top”.
“Mormonism is criticized as being a specious religion because it was revealed in America, not all that long ago.”
Hardly.
How does the validity of ANY religious sect, single sect or all religious dogmas as a whole, dictate either “truth” or required public curriculum?
Historically, place significant events and personalities chronologically. If desired, include what they had to say without interpolation.
But defining the “meaning” of a dogma (the unprovable convoluted claim, not empirical scientific “fact” or even “theory” sustained via experimental trial results) as “truth” is progressive ignorance, not enlightenment. This applies to Scientism as well as to “literal” interpretation of translations of ancient man’s oral traditions.
9. J.E. Dyer
A good series going here. It’s worth making the point, however, that 20th century Supreme Court decisions on what the First Amendment means for our current practices aren’t the same thing as the historical record of how the Framers saw religion and the state. Teaching the former as if it’s the latter would be as wrong as teaching the latter as if it’s the former.
–
I agree with Dyre’s response.
–
Zombie
The point is that the textbooks writers should not be determining their own preferences or interpretations, but rather report what the status quo simply is or what history has happened, not what ought to have happened or what should be.
–
In a perfect world. But as is, publishers and authors have ideologies and want a profit.
Here is the problem with teaching creationism or ID–
In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.
Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.
Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.
Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.
Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.
Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.
Will this be taught in a Creationism class? Will ID examine this story for clues to the intelligence behind the design?
No.
Creationism classes and ID proponents focus on Genesis. By doing so in a public school, the State is respecting the establishment of the tenets of a particular religion.
There is nothing wrong with Texas.
Texans are interested in conservative, traditional American values and unlike the place where you live, we are not going to tolerate the indoctrination of our children by Liberal morons with an anti-American agenda to peddle.
So. We’ve joined the battle. There are 49 other states. If you don’t like Texas, pick any one of the other 49 and STFU.
Get it, Bippy?
Here is the problem with teaching the evolutionary religion of the Darwinian church in the public school: in the beginning there was an explosion and a biotic soup. Then came all sorts of amoebaes. Then a god named the “hopeful monster” waved the magic wand to fill the earth with all kinds of life-form. After a short while, the “hopeful monster” was changed into the god named “punctuated equilibrium” who would continue the magical life-creating process. This gravity-like magic finally created man. This species somehow spent so much time to intelligently design their powerful computers. But they don’t know the magic of the evolutionary God who can create even more complex systems in the DNA. If they can learn how to wave that magic wand, they would be able to solve their deficit problem in no time.
You left out the last part, where the god name “politics” magically made all men equal. But then “politics” is a fickle god, and may change his mind.
Zombie’s argument is the leftist’s standard “let’s stop bickering and agree to accept all my premises”. That’s why it deserves and receives so much push-back.
The fact (agree or disagree with it, it’s a fact) and the difficulty is that America is founded upon a specifically Christian belief about the human person: all men are created equal. Our entire national history is wrapped around the development and application (or not) of that principle. The mechanics of creation are not the real issue here; the premise that our fundamental social law originates in some fact existing inalienably beyond the political sphere is the issue. We are playing for high stakes here: what rights come from man may be revoked by man.
The problem with teaching evolution is not in teaching the facts, but the meta-dogmas leftists regularly import into the teaching. Natural selection, mutation and adaptation are observable mechanisms. The randomness of these events is a specific dogmatic interpretation given to these events in order to deny them a Christian interpretation. The left desires above all to teach that there is no God and Nietzsche is his non-prophet. The right’s desires, by contrast, are far more meager: nobody on the right in Texas or anywhere else is seeking to place into textbooks the full Genesis narrative complete with Adam and Eve and the Fall. The so-cons in Texas are trying merely to prevent their children being taught as fact that all existence is meaningless random chance.
Thanks for the addendum. Just minor quibble about politics. I would rather call this god “state” or “government”. Anyway, the issue is more about the “truth” – what is objectively true. If “evolution” is “true”, then we should have the intellectual honesty to accept its logical consequences. The problem is that the “macro” or creative evolution is not true by any honest objective or scientific standards. In fact, the modern scientific facts move further away from the evolution hypothesis. But the problem is that the proponents of evolution can not muster enough intellectual courage to have an open and honest debate. They have to hide behind the veneer of science to force the teaching of their evolutionary religion. BTW, there is nothing wrong with Hitler, Stalin, or Mao according to the logic of the evolutionary religion. What is wrong with getting rid of the less fit of the human species. The evolutionary religion declares that all animals are “created” equal by the evolutionary God. What is so special about the human species compared to other animals?
The fact (agree or disagree with it, it’s a fact) and the difficulty is that America is founded upon a specifically Christian belief about the human person: all men are created equal.
Oh really.
The Saxons were doing democracy whilst still pagans. This legacy survived in the British Isles to the point where the Magna Carta was established under King John. America was founded primarily on principles that predate what the history challenged assume must be “christian” precepts, including Saxon Common Law (which was adopted wholesale as part of British Common Law.)
I have a difficult time ascertaining whether bible thumping “true believers” are really that f***ing stupid or are simply ignorant beyond all comprehension. Either way your premise is utter crap.
“Oh really.”
“The Saxons were doing…”
This post actually made my head hurt.
Living proof that there is SOMETHING wrong with the schools.
Mr Asston…may I call you Mr. Asston?
Sorry but your post is the one full of total and utter crap! The whole premise of the post you “refuted” was that this nation was founded on the “Christian” premise that all men are created equal. Your “argument” was…..that the pagan Saxons set up an entire government based on this principle? That somehow the Magna Carta espoused this principle? Sorry (being either an “f***ing stupid” or “simply ignorant beyond all comprehension” bible thumper I get confused by all this high-falutin’ book learnin’ stuff) but uh wasn’t there still like a King and the whole “nobility” set-up after the Magna Carta…hold up…isn’t there STILL nobility in Merry Olde England? How did THAT square with the whole “ALL men are created EQUAL”? I’m pretty sure King John didn’t consider the mud-hut dwelling peasant his “equal” just because he signed the Magna Carta. Just as I’m equally sure that the Saxon’s didn’t establish a nation….
So exaclty how did your points disprove the original assertion again? Maybe it’s just the secular, dentally-impaired, socialistic Limey Rotters like you that are f-ing stupid..or simply ignorant beyond all comprehsion….
I don’t have a problem with the idea that certain pagans could have been somewhat democratic for their time. The Saxons did still have kings, though, while the “all men are created equal” in the Declaration was a broadside against the very concept of (human) kingship.
I am extremely suspicious of the charge that pagans/Mohammedans/what-have-you are responsible for every good thing that actually appeared and flourished under the Christian banner. It’s a cross between reverse-Whig history and the Rousseauian noble-savage myth.
I’m old enough to remember when it was “scientifically proven” that the Mayans and Aztecs were peaceful agrarian societies, and the Samoans practiced free love. And all these societies the West suppressed were non-patriarchal LBGTQ-friendly collectives who practiced recycling and veganism. Currently it’s still PC “history” that all the good ideas of the Middle Ages were Moslem, ignoring the fact that most of the famous great thinkers of the Islamic empires were subjugated dhimmi Jews and Christians who periodically suffered for it. It’s also “history” that the Middle Ages consisted of ceaseless grinding poverty and oppression, ignoring the still-present physical evidence of medieval great wealth and commerce in even the small towns of Europe.
Oy. The teachers and students like the moment of silence. I voted against it- it was up for a perfectly democratic vote. Texans voted for a moment of piety clean enough to pass the contemptuous ACLU sniff test, and got it. It turns out, both the teachers and the kids like it. Who knew?
In Texas, the reading of the constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. And that states can. As Texas has a sizeable, wealthy and powerful Baptist constituency, what other reading can you expect? Established pastors in Virginia wrote in their diaries about hunting Baptist preachers “like foxes.” Texas also has sizeable, active, wealthy Methodist congregations. Ann Richards attended the one in downtown Austin, as did Governor Bush. The Methodist faith was established in the US, when the established Church of England hounded Mr Wesley out of England. We get, more than most states, that a unit of government can mess with a religion, or make it more powerful. And since we don’t have the ones that most filmmakers glamorize as political- think catholics in new york based movies–it’s a little more clear.
Texas also has a viable, competitive high school and college debate circuit. Ideas get tested out on the circuit, to become the operating commonplaces of most lawyers and legislators. Karl Rove? The “icky”? Any of his ideas were workshopped and tested and debated for years long before the national six weeks hysteria. Now, during the early protestant froth, switzerland and calvin had very different ideas than martin luther, or even the guys the next valley over- menno? The starting points were similar, the conclusions were different, the methods could be right sloppy. It’s the same sort of thing, except now it’s about political faiths.
And the commonplaces? I thought states could regulate and promote religions, just like the founders designed it. I thought New York, or even New York City, could regulate the ground zero mosque right out of existence, and that the president really didn’t get to have more than a small, private, opinion on the matter. New York City regulates handguns, while Houston has different regulations. It’s the same sort of thing. That’s the power of education.
And, goodness, it’s not like there’s an intellectual purity in favor of evolution even at the college level in Texas. I had two separate presentations of Intelligent Design, or god did its, in college, at UTA. In chemistry, and in biology.
So you are getting upset about the commmon culture in Texas. I’m not upset, since I know there are schools in DC promoting “sun-ra- ism” about how black egyptions taught the greeks. that’s an odd common culture to come commenting on texas. And really, if other states want their own textbooks, they too are free to become wealthy, influential, textbook purchasing states with citizen imput. As far as I can tell, massachusetts is wealthy, and ideological and bureaucrats impose a textbook on the population,with no citizen input.
There is no state decision on textbooks in Mass. that I know of. Schools make that decision in hundreds of different communities; I made that decision myself for my high school English department, but apart from some grammar texts; textbooks are not a big deal in English. The state has created the frameworks of what must be covered, but not proscribed text books. I hadn’t given it much though until you brought it up, but maybe state dictates over one textbook for all Texans is not a good thing, although I don’t know for a fact that it really does work out that way. Does it? Textbooks in general are so damned over-priced that I ordered them as a last resort. They do help a certain uniformity of program that standards-based curriculum requires, but in these days of desk top publishing and high-powered, two-sided, collating copiers etc, they are being heavily supplemented, if not replaced for many things. Certainly teachers can add to and supplement whatever is in any textbook, but the topic gives us something to skirmish over.
Now this is some reporting. Glad you checked out the link I gave you.
Zombie – What part of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny don’t you understand? The debate about the “reality” of evolution is over? How omniscient of you to condescend to put an end to the scientific process for all time. Any other aspects of “reality” that you happen to be the ultimate arbiter for?
BTW – If you think the culture wars have rendered only the left and right extremes shell-shocked, you should pay more attention to your comment section. Some of your supporters are as angry and irrational as anything you’re likely to stumble across at the DU or WND.
Zombie
Board conservatives succeeded in censoring the word “capitalism” in the standards, requiring that the term for that economic system be called “free enterprise” throughout all social studies courses.
–
In the ’60s, “free enterprise” was the term, along with laissez-faire in elementary school. We started hearing “capitalist pig” from high school and college hippies long before “capitalism” became common usage in public education to supersede “free enterprise” or “free market”.
I’d text ‘democratically representative Constitutional Republic’ for American public ed vocabulary. It all matters. Teach the Pledge of Allegiance (that should begin each school morning in America) to little ones, show pictures of our democratic “Republic” for which our flag stands as our nation’s unifying symbol. “One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty for All.” Elementary school was where we learned what we were pledging our allegiance to. Lots of big words for youngsters; “allegiance” helped us to mature and become responsible for our actions as we all identified ourselves completely American. Teach the Constitution, bit by bit age appropriate. Introduce THE LAW, brief essays by BARZUN, Jefferson’s ideological descendant as required reading in civics/government curriculum beginning in Middle School.
Cutting any intrinsic symbol from the Founders’ American legacy mutates and corrupts their gift. “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum” were not inserted by Eisenhower after WWII for the American identity, eschewing communist/fascist Marxist aggression. We are all equal under the law, regardless of belief in the Spirit of Life. But Marxists in our three government branches have established by their own corruption of the Constitution that some people, citizens or especially not, are legislated and judged to be MORE SPECIAL than others. Affirmative Action applies its own destructive element. Religiosity that limits knowledge resource condemning empirical science, and exalts donors as MORE SPECIAL citizens than others is hardly the Spirit’s saving grace.
To return to our original American understanding and usage of our Constitution requires more than a bi-partisan “compromise” given our current, corrupted circumstances. Our Founders were Christians of the Enlightenment. We needn’t worship God exactly as they did or didn’t in order to appreciate their construction of our Constitutional Government.
“In Texas, the reading of the constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. And that states can.”
It appears that people in Texas can read better than federal judges can.
Can’t say that surpises me.
The 14th amendment flatly prohibits the states from doing anything the feds are prohibited from doing. Seems the TSBE and you can’t read, either.
“media bias”
Zomb, if conservatives are pushing too far in these debates I think media bias has to be considered. We just expect all media coverage of this issue to be biased against conservatives. It makes it hard to note our own errors. So, thanks for bringing them up. The last time ‘we’ all lined up and agreed on a stance and wouldn’t listen to other POVs / self criticism was the Shivo debate… and then came the 06 losses… and then Obama… and yes, I think it is related.
I think we should remember, conservatives get votes just for not being insufferable jerks like left wing democrats… and part of this is due to being able to respectfully disagree and/or tolerate debate. When we become shrill, we loose those votes.
The problem with forcing a Left/Right agenda into a school curriculum is that most of that crap has NOTHING to do with actual education and learning.
Don’t want your child to be indoctrinated with things you don’t believe means a hill-of-beans from either side? Teach your own children the things you think are missing from the lessons they ‘learn’ in school. Or, more specifically, UN-learn them things that you don’t agree with. You don’t have to have been a home-schooler like me to appreciate the importance of parental involvement.
When parents totally relinquish all responsibility of their children to unionized teachers and whackadoodle administrators with more self-interest than interest in actual ‘teaching’…don’t just blame the teachers, blame yourself for being a shitty parent to even allow that to happen.
Public school should be innocuous and fairly bland fare. Children should be learning the basics at the very least. When children come out of schools with nary a grasp of arithmetic and literacy, those are the big “WTF” issues. If someone can read and write and perform math (even basic math), they can learn on their own from then on out. What some of these ‘teaching’ institutions are doing is outright neglect. It’s more important to ‘indoctrinate’ a student than ‘teach’ them the tools which will help them ‘teach’ themselves? GTFO
Parents get no free pass either. Many teachers have become glorified babysitters rather than genuine educators. It’s up to parents step up and teach their own children and deprogram them if need be.
Public school is a poor substitute for what a parent can teach their child.
rant off/
Zombie asks “whats the matter with Texas?”
Answer: Not a damned thing that can’t be fixed by Texans.
Didnt take 4 effing installments either.
So Zombie, why dont you stop amplifying over-hyped leftest scare tactics, it does not serve your credibility well.
It may help to realize that, from a Christian perspective, all human government is inherently secular. For Biblical references, I suggest:
I Samuel 8:11-22
St. John 18:36
$0.02 – thanks.
Perhaps I missed it, but you didn’t mention that the TSBE members who are most guilty of conservative overreach lost their Republican primaries back in March.
They are lame ducks. It’s simply unfortunate that they get to stay in office for 9 months following their defeat.
In that context, I don’t see much point in overanalyzing their opinions and decisions this year. “Everyone” knows they are wrong, and they’ll be reversed by the new board.
The supreme court’s interpretation is the one that isn’t kosher.
Seriously though, if you’re going to talk about the INTENT of the framers of our constitution, it makes no sense to base your argument upon the COMMENTARY of people who came along much later.
To be fair and accurate, Jefferson’s writings include a letter in which he specifically calls for church and state to be totally separate. This is where the supreme court got its bright ideas about this issue. The problem is that while it is possible to separate two organizations (post office vs Nasa) it isn’t possible to play the same game with beliefs and ideas.
We have always had separation of CHURCH and state in this country. Religious leaders don’t make public policy by virtue of their position within their church. We don’t have ecclesiastical laws or ecclesiastical courts.
Religious institutions don’t dictate public policy. The lie that the left tries to peddle is the idea that public policy cannot be shaped by religious IDEAS either. This is a direct attack on democracy itself. If the majority of the people elect someone whose platform includes ideas inspired by shared religious beliefs, then that is democracy in action. To say that those ideas are verboten because they are religiously inspired is a lie. Not only it is a lie, but it is a lie that is fashioned from pure malice and intended to cause irreparable harm. It is a direct attack on the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
The reason why leftists continually repeat this lie is not because they don’t believe religious ideas should influence public policy, but because the religions in question are not their own. Leftists have their own religion that they tirelessly promote. It is called Marxism. It goes by other names as well, but that is its most accurate description. It is a religion founded on dialectical materialism and the cosmic aggrandizement of petty resentments. And like devout followers of all faiths, the leftists want their religion to destroy all others. But because they cannot sell it when other religions are given the opportunity to present their case, they pretend that their faith is not a religion and then attack the idea of religion itself. Unable to win the argument, they seek to outlaw the debate.
Why?
Because evil is not merely the absence of good.
I agree with you up to the point of allowing Marxists the concession of putting their socio-economic theory on the same level as traditional religion. That they have tried to do so is a known fact, that they have subverted many things from traditional religions into their own cult of state is another, but it does not mean the thing itself is truth.
I have always wondered why more conservatives have fallen into the trap of allowing statists to argue with them point for point on this. Would it not be a better strategy to call marxists out by pointing to their proposed criticism of religion does not seem to keep them from enshrining their pet socio-politico-economic beliefs as some form of religion? I mean, the hypocrisy of it all is enough to discredit them to a large extent I should think!
A Christian veiwpoint in the Public Schools is consistent with community standards in Texas as well as most of the states , and is therefore acceptable .
The owl-headed ACLU notwithstanding.
I will be onboard with evolution as soon as someone zaps a bowl of “organic soup” into a living anything.
You will?
Better start packing your bags:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Man-plays-creator-Scientists-create-artificial-life-in-US-lab/articleshow/5960128.cms
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=17&art_id=48030&sid=14287580&con_type=1
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/70761/scientists-create-artificial-life-lab.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/u-s-scientists-produce-living-cell-powered-by-manmade-dna-1.291314
…etc. etc.
We’re very very close.
Glad you’ll finally awake from your reverie!
Zombie, I find it interesting that you’ve just linked a bunch of articles referring to intelligent tinkering with living systems in order to refute…intelligent design.
Your almost complete ideological blindness on this issue leads me to discount anything else you might have to say in these articles.
None of those experiments “create” life.
For example, the times of India article says it, “is the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and transplanted into a recipient cell to produce a new self-replicating cell controlled only by the synthetic genome”
It seems in order to “produce a new self-replicating cell” the chemicals must be transplanted into a recipient cell.
Can they “create” life without life there to support it?
Not yet, but many laboratories around the world are trying as we speak, and many claim to be on the verge of success. TIme will tell.
In the Beginning, Someone created…
Why ‘beginning’? Well, if you start in the infinite past, you can’t reach the present. The universe has to have a beginning. And if you run entropy backwards infinitely, you reach infinite energy in the universe. That doesn’t work.
Why ‘created’? Well, the Big Bang is ‘first there was nothing, then it exploded’. And there are megastructures formed of galactic clusters that would take trillions, YES TRILLIONS, of years to form. 15B the commonly accepted Big bang time span is vastly short.
Why ‘created’? Because scientifically we don’t have a clue as to how the solar system formed. It should not exist. We’ve gone down a dead end, and we need to back up and try another route.
Why ‘created’? Because the universe reflects so many qualities. Those qualities of beauty and elegance, or reason, and law, of love and freedom all must have a source, a Creator. Something does not come from nothing.
Why ‘Someone’? Why not a self-organizing principle? Because law-bound objects like crystals form simple repeating patterns. They do not form information which is specified complexity.
Now before Matter existed, what could exist? Mind.
And a Mind that could create a universe of thousands of galaxies would be…?
Massively powerful, deeply knowing, wise.
A mind that would create nebula of gases and carnations would what? Love beauty.
A mind that would make a universe that was lawful would be…? Orderly.
A mind that was good would….? Create Good as a reality.
A mind that valued freedom would…? Give free will to its creations.
Its simple logic. God must exist, and he must be much as he’s described in the Bible. Almighty, all-knowing, orderly, giving of freedom, desirous of our affection and good.
And if fear that He is not real because of Darwinian brainwashing paid for by the gov’t stands in your way, fear not, our grandchildren will grow up in a free and prosperous society, Lord willing, laughing at us for our silliness of believing in such obvious garbage.
Two things–
When the 1st Amendment was passed several states had established churches e which were not disestablished by the Amendment -which could not have passed if disestablishment were effected. the last of these Massachusetts did not disestablish until the 1830′s. It is the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War which sets the Bill of Rights over state governments.
Evolution, like other scientific theories, captures the popular imagination and leads to philosophical and political thought. what distinguishes evolution from relativity or Newtonian physics e.g. is that the political repercussions from Nazism to Jim Crow to eugenics were entirely evil. IMO, this political effect is every bit as important to teach as the underlying biology.
I appreciate the thoughtful comments people have made on the issues facing those who care about education in Texas and all over the United States. As a professor at Texas State University and as the Democratic candidate running for Texas State Board of Education District 5 against incumbent, Mr. Ken Mercer, I would like to assure voters in the twelve counties of District 5 that they do have a moderate alternative.
In addition to teaching for thirty years, I have served as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner (an unpaid office) in San Marcos. In both capacities, I have learned to balance differing interests and viewpoints and seek common ground and goals most people can agree on. My strategy in such situations has always been to adhere to the rules and stated mission, usually a brief, clear statement of goals that few could argue with. This is what I will also do as a member of the Texas State Board of Education.
The current process is flawed because the board brings in their personal political and religious views, instead of allowing the teachers and experts on the committees they themselves have selected to do the job of outlining the curriculum. Board members make hundreds of ill-considered and minute word changes that often muddle the issue and butcher a well designed curriculum. Then, during public hearings, some speakers are cut off at three minutes, while others are questioned and allowed to speak for extended periods, based on the whims of board members. This is just one aspect of the ways in which this board fails to operate in a logical, fair and even-handed way that would improve education for all school children in Texas.
I believe it is important to have members on the board who have experience in education and respect for our local school boards, teachers, parents, and students. I have visited a number of local board meetings and I’ve been impressed with the hard work and fairness of these boards. I would like to see the Texas State Board of Education operate with the same dedication to our children’s education. We do not need a board that uses their position to grandstand or make a political football out of our children. We need board members who value teachers and who will prepare our students for higher education and jobs in the 21st century.
Rebecca Bell-Metereau
Professor of English, Candidate for Texas State Board of Education, District 5
htt;://www.voterebecca.com
The tyranny of “experts” is part of the problem.
Breaking the monopoly of state education bureaucracies regarding what is taught in the classroom, and enabling greater parental choice, will cause practical, fact-based curricula to proliferate and will reduce the amount of faddish education-school theories and indoctrination techniques currently displacing the teaching of actual skills. Sadly, not all parents care whether their kids learn enough to ever be gainfully employed — but enough of them do to improve the overall selection of schools, if they can exercise the power of the market.
Forget for a moment the left/right battle to inculcate morality. How about a battle to give kids a scientific education fit for the 21st century? As a European parent of American kids I’m disgusted that they only spend one year each on Biology, Physics & Chemistry. No wonder you poor dumb crackers believe in Creationism & a flat earth. America can no longer rely on a steady stream on nerdy science-educated immigrants to make up the its pathetic High School system.
I wish my kids had spent a fraction of the school time on Physics that they’ve been obliged to spend on studying disabled, black, lesbian slaves.
Just damn.
I am a self-proclaimed liberal. My dad is/was an English Professor in the college town where I grew up. I am, for all intensive purposes, what you proclaim to hate. However, I’m not a marxist, and one of the first things I taught my son is, “and who’s fault is that, young man.” You have this idea that liberals want to indoctinate all of our children with the feeling that they’re all special, that God has no place in their lives, and that the government is the end all and be all to our problems.
I can state for a fact that my dad and teachers taught me to question the status quo, to look for the agenda behind the statement, and always have backup for when I’m making a statement – in other words, to use critical thinking skills.
I do not believe that America is bad or evil, and I love my country. However, I am well aware that Manifest Destiny included giving smallpox ridden blankets to the Indians, that we, as a country, were responsible for our own version of imperialism (maybe not as severe as Great Britian, but there all the same), and invaded Iraq for no valid reason. However, we have done some amazing things over the years, and it really does make me proud to be a part of this “Great Experiment.” I want my child to know about our country – warts and all. That’s not revisionist history – it’s learning about the good and the bad. Who was it who said, “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?” Do you want your children to live in ignorance, to only know what we did right? Seriously? You want the next generation to think that we can do no wrong, that our country is infallible?
One of the topics I’ve been reading from many of you is how this is a Christian nation found on Judeo-Christian values. Just because the majority in our country are Christian does not mean that it’s right to infict upon those without the same beliefs your values. People who are not Christian or Jewish can be good people and raise their children to be moral. And as someone said, what brand of Christianity do you want our country to be – Baptist, Catholic, etc.? Those of you who want our country to be run by Christian beliefs, pick which one and state it. Be prepared to back it up against those who are Jewish (if you haven’t accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you are doomed to Hell, right?) or Mormon or….
Regarding evolution – if you want to include Creationism or ID in the science class, I want you to include information about Zeus and Odin as viable options. They have as much scientific backing as the Bible. Please prove me wrong. I, personally, am ok with using anything in the science classroom that scientific method can be applied to. Otherwise, it has NO place in a science class.
Yes, I am liberal, but no, I don’t think that patriotism means red-neck ignorance nor do I want America to fail. I do believe in self-reliance and I do believe we can make our country better if we work together vs. vitriol and partisanship.
Thanks for listening.
See, you’re brainwashed with anti-American propaganda and you don’t even know it.
No American ever gave Indians blanket infected with smallpox: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox
The only recorded maybe instance was a BRITISH (not American) commander in the French-Indian War (not an American war) who suggested giving them smallpox blankets — but that is not positive, because we don’t know if he followed through with the plan. That was a single incident in 1763 — no record of it ever happening before or since, especially after 1776, when America came into being.
Aside from the one incident, there is no documentation it ever happened. Most likely just an urban legend.
Yet, despite all that, you remain convinced of the unassailable fact that America as a nation gave smallpox blankets to Indians as part of a nefarious Manifest Destiny plan, and we all bear collective guilt for this heinous crime.
You also seem to be absolutely sure that we “invaded Iraq for no valid reason.” Hmmmmm…were you alive in 2003? ‘Cause I was, and I seem to remember Saddam Hussein violating basically every U.N. sanction placed against him, which (according to the U.N. itself) was more than enough justification for the coalition to finish the war that started in 1990.
You’re steeped in anti-American liberal lies. Wake up!
Ok, I’ll give the smallpox blankets the status of urban legend, but where did I say there was collective guilt for our heinous crime? I want to make sure our kids know history, the good and the bad. How is this liberal brainwashing?
I was alive in 2003 – and I do not seem to recall the part where we agreed to be the UN’s policeman. Did we even have UN backing for going in there?
Elizabeth, Some of this is addressed to you and some, some to Zombie, and some a general ramble cast to the internets. As Zombie has pointed out, you are on very shaky ground with the smallpox in the blankets assertion, and I would add; the expression is “for all intents and purposes,” not “all intensive purposes.”
But, that having been said, there are endless examples of “our” treatment of the Indians which could be used to document our taking of their land, killing them, starving them (good-bye buffalo) etc. On a larger scale, of course, we took their land, because originally it was all “theirs,” but much more troubling is our violation of the treaties which we had signed with them, once our citizens realized that there was gold in them thar hills, or that the Indians weren’t using the land well, or that we simply wanted it and we had a much less useful place we could put them (those who survived.) In general, ‘we” voted for the people who put these policies into place and they were doing the will of the people. Also, in general, conservative prefer not to acknowledge such a negative take on our great country, because the idea and feeling of our being great trumps the facts, just as for the Gramscians, the idea of our feeling ashamed about our country trumps the facts. Of course there are thousands of these positive and negative “facts” to sort through, so we all simplify.
Anyway, one basic law may be that the strong and smart usually conquer the weak and stupid. Is it a conservative thing to espouse this law in the face of liberal mamby-pambyness, both in life and in education? Quite possibly.
But in general, Elizabeth, you make the important point of affirming what you value and how you and your father pass on these values to your children and your students. It makes for better drama for Zombie to claim that at best you are a tool of Gramsci and communists, and he effects dismay that no one has the guts to call you and people like you (or is it just your secret indoctrinators?) communists.
We live our lives both as individuals and within a society and various value systems focus on our role as an individual and others focus on our role within a society of the larger whole. It is absurd to think that we do not need both. Of course there are tensions between the two, and sometimes Civil War, but the “individual” side is not always the right side, and we go back and forth between the two as with many things in our form of government and our national character.
While we are at it, maybe someone can explain exactly where the “God-given” individual rights are given by God. I know that the Founders SAID that they were, but where did God give those rights? And which God was it?
Are there goofy and counter-productive aspects of modern education applied or misapplied by flawed human beings? For sure. My biggest beef would be that if you create a monolithic pretend world of high self esteem for all, pacifistic conflict resolution, and enforced equality and leveling, that you simply lose touch with the secret (dare we say “real”) lives of our students. Yes, to some degree a school runs and needs to run, on the fantasy of “let’s all pretend to be reasonable civilized people for six hours a day, and if you don’t pretend, there will be a punishment,” When and where, though, do we get real? People used to beat children to civilize them. Now we have gone a long way, probably too far in the other direction, although I assume that guilt creation is certainly alive and well. Certainly students, especially females are nastier than ever to each other in the privacy of their socialization rituals. I suppose that we (especially conservatives) should take some consolation in that reality, eh?
Zombie, I am sure that the over-the-top righties here will think that you have redeemed your self with the revelation of the communist plot. Alas, you showed some balance in pointing out that some of the Texas curriculum brandishers were nutty. (You and I would both probably acknowledge that most of the curriculum is OK>), but then you go jump in with the nuts with the commie thing. Wouldn’t it be more fair, and more importantly more accurate to say that some of the elements of modern education are to be found in Gramsci etc., but that many are simply responses (many possibly ill-advised) to issues in the Twenty-First century?
Now there is a hurricane to prepare for.
Dwight,
intensive purposes – yes, that was a serious typo. I do know the difference and must have had a bit of a brain freeze last night. Thank you for pointing that out.
And, yes, you’re correct. There are many other documented cases where we have irrevocably harmed the Indians. I went for the lazy and quick way, and was called out on it (and rightly so).
I also agree with much that you said. Do I think our schools need fixing? Absolutely! Do I think pushing self-esteem over merit has any advantages? Heck no! I value learning – giving prizes for showing up is not learning. I’m also pretty sure many academics agree with me – unless it’s their children, of course.
The sense of entitlement in our society runs the gamut from inner city poor to middle class elderly to those lovely drivers who go on the shoulder to bypass traffic because they’re much too important to wait with the others. I am trying to raise my son without a victim mentality. He’s a Senior in High School and doesn’t do drugs, treats women with respect (except occasionally his mother), and wants to become a paleontologist. I’m not going to say my husband and I succeeded until he’s out in the world making his own way, but I’m not displeased so far.
There is duplicity in your comment. If rights do not necessarily come from God then what property right was infringed upon with Native-American lands? The ole “I was here first clause”? You tread into dangerous waters with such thinking (not from the innate property clause you’ve assumed alone), but that because if rights are not derived from a Creator God then what makes you think Native-Americans have a right to kill and eat buffalo to begin with? Or that beavers and ducks do not have “first here clause” rights over the Indians? The end of such logic is that Power determines rights. In that case, you’d still be wrong, because that wasn’t the point you were making (was it?), and you purposefully used contradictory principles… that were, an innate equitable system of rights (theory) without God (theory). (I write “theory” in parenthesis for fairness, not to invalidate you.) Logic is like math, and not our own Creation. It is possible to track the roots of principles and their meaning.
Rights come from God, because God is above all. Such a “God Premise” to Natural Rights is necessary and the only fair way, because God is above all. Simple. You might try to say this is a Power fallacy as well, but it isn’t, because it is firstly based on Righteousness. God’s Power is coincidental to his ability to have His will done: the evidence is in the fact that Christ, who was God come as a man, was able to accomplish all that His father had planned while remaining fully human throughout his life. If you understood that rights are ONLY FAIRLY derived from God, the God Principle, you’d understand also that God gives lands to whomever he will, because it is not ours, but God’s to give and take away.
…Oh, there are those property rights…
What does treating the Indians horribly have to do with property rights? We didn’t break treaties again and again? The Trail of Tears didn’t occur? Stick to the subject at hand. My point regarding history is that I think it’s important that our children know American history – the good and the bad. Again I ask, how is that a liberal concept?
“…always have backup for when I’m making a statement – in other words, to use critical thinking skills.”
You need to work on that one, my dear.
I’m not fond of the broad generalizations on either side of the spectrum. Sure, there are those that blindly adhere to the one side of the conservative/liberal dichotomy, but I for one am wildly liberal but have brains enough to appreciate patriotism for what it is (and would say, openly, I am greatly patriotic), but it seems a weapon from the right to discredit those who disagree with them. Think McCarthyism and the libel/slander laid upon those who opposed the Iraq war. Who was unpatriotic, the witch-hunters, the war-hawks, or the ones who called for caution, reason and peace?
“the idea and feeling of our being great trumps the facts”
I don’t think most conservatives think this. The facts are what they are, and should be taught as they are in context. What conservatives despise is the Gramscian assault on Western ethics under the guise of pointing out hypocrisy. If “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”, then in the Western/Christian worldview the virtue remains a rational truth regardless of whether or not it is respected. It is good to acknowledge the vice but bad to disparage the virtue. The Gramscian worldview instead disparages the virtue and redefines the ethical norm downward in the direction of the vice.
The tip of the spear is the mendacious dual standard whereby defenders of Western civilization are expected to abide by one set of ethics, but those against Western civilization are free to flout it while enjoying its fruits. When clergy who engage in pederasty are (rightly) condemned, but gay “chicken hawks” who engage in pederasty are celebrated for “helping young men discover their sexuality”, that’s an egregious double standard. When Americans are expected to “show their papers” to register for school/get a driver’s license/anything else under the sun, but illegal immigrants are exempt from the same requirement, that’s a double standard. When heated words are dubbed “domestic abuse” when spoken by Western men, while beating wives and daughters overlooked as a “culturally sensitive practice” when done by Arab Moslem men, that’s a double standard.
In every case, the goal is not to establish a contrary prevailing norm, but merely to tear down the Western establishment.
“While we are at it, maybe someone can explain exactly where the “God-given” individual rights are given by God. I know that the Founders SAID that they were, but where did God give those rights? And which God was it?”
This is where taking proof-text snippets from this or that religious text is missing the point. The Catholic tradition, just to defend the one closest to me, does not claim to know God’s attributes from one fragment of text but from a coherent whole of revelatory truth. We learn that man is created in God’s image, that all men are equal before God, and that Jesus being God became man to be united to us and redeem us from existential death; these and other aspects of the Christian creed underscore a fundamental dignity about humanity that is part of the divine order. For man to reject his own dignity or the dignity of his fellow man is to put himself in the role of God (as sociopaths and tyrants invariably do). And that, heavily condensed, is where inalienable rights come from. Your inalienable rights are circumscribed precisely by their requirement to respect human dignity (yours and others’): that is the essence of the moral law.
Other religious traditions lack, or reject, these revelations regarding the relationship of God and man, and thus reach different conclusions about what man is, what he is for, and what choices and actions are proper to him. The pagan Greek and Roman gods are completely arbitrary in their actions and use man as their playthings. The Islamic Allah does not share any attributes with man, does not impart any dignity upon man, and is completely arbitrary in his actions. Therefore these religions hold humans as essentially disposable, and propagate this view throughout their legal and moral traditions. Ideas matter.
I agree that hypocrisy needs to be called out and exposed. However, I have issues with your examples. Are you ok with a 20-21 year old guy dating a 16-17 year old girl? If so, what’s wrong with a 20-21 year old guy dating a 16-17 year old boy? Most homosexuals I know look upon chicken hawks as nothing more than slimy predators, much the same way I feel about 30+ year old men going after high school girls. I’ve never heard of these people being celebrated for helping young men discover their sexuality.
And I agree that if you and I are required to show proof of birth/citizenship in order to get a license, etc, then all in this country should. Are you sure illegal immigrants aren’t required to show papers? In what instances? News to me.
I know of no liberal who looks upon honor killings, stonings, beatings of women, etc as a culturally sensitive practice. If they are done in the US, then the perpetrators should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, verbal abuse can be damaging (yes, I know there are people who have taken advantage of current laws) and does need to be addressed. Please show links where people have stated that beating wives and daughters within our borders is acceptable. I specifically remember the brouhaha in the US when it was reported what female circumcision was and that it was occurring in the US. This was around 15 years ago. It certainly wasn’t the liberals trying to ‘understand’ another culture. Barbarism is wrong, in all its forms.
I like the idea of the Golden Rule as a basis for God-given rights. I think that can work with anyone and everyone (IMHO).
The Islamic Allah doesn’t share any attributes with man? Really? Isn’t the Islamic religion an offshoot from Judaism? Isn’t Jesus a prophet within the Islamic faith? I was raised Catholic, and am an agnostic – not atheist – so I don’t pretend to know everything about the Islamic religion. But I think you’re making some heavy generalizations there that need to be backed up.
Some notes:
1. Eve Ensler’s celebrated “Vagina Monologues” had an approving bit in it describing a lesbian chicken-hawk’s quasi-rape of a girl, and it’s been a staple (and sometimes a course assignment) at college campuses for 20 years.
2. Any child who shows up at public school on the first day will have to produce shot records, proof of residency, etc., in order to register — unless they look Hispanic and speak Spanish, in which case it is common that all the “required” records are magically waived.
3. Islam may be an offshoot from Judaism and Christianity, but it is most emphatic in what it denies. It asserts that it does not befit Allah’s dignity to beget a son (therefore denying Jesus’ divinity, but also the dignity of Jesus’ humanity). It asserts that Allah’s will is absolute and not bound to reason (therefore denying that rationality is an indicator of the divine order); Allah can will irrationality in the universe when he chooses. The philosophical corrolaries of these and other doctrines are the effects I am talking about.
I read the Vagina Monologues. There was nothing I remember reading about a lesbian chicken hawk’s quasi-rape of a girl. It’s basically a series of short stories, so I’m sure that you can give me the title. I’ll be happy to review.
I’ll take your word for registering for school. However, I’m assuming you’ve read Oliver Twist (or at least seen the movie). Are you ok with a bunch of uneducated children running around our cities all day, as Fagan’s boys did? I am in no way condoning illegal immigration, but I dread the possibilities if there were gangs of children not in school.
The Jewish God hasn’t embraced Jesus’s divinity, nor has the God of the Old Testament been completely rational. What’s the difference between OT God and Allah? “Denies the dignity of Jesus’ humanity.” Does God give dignity to all humanity, or just Jesus’ humanity? Please give me some links from the Koran regarding your statements, or some papers from Muslims espousing these beliefs. I really don’t see much difference between the Jewish God and the Islamic God. I thought Abraham was the founder of Islam (could definitely be wrong on this).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vagina_Monologues
I had to look it up; it’s “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could”, which was later rewritten to make the girl 16 instead of the original 13.
Thomas Frank’s premise in “What’s the matter with Kansas” was economic, not philosophical. He was amazed that his fellow Kansans would continue to support an economic philosophy (Reagonomics/Corporatism) and its adherents that worked against their economic interests. He used economic statistics and the reality that is Kansas in the early 21st century to support this supposition.
The fact that many of his fellow Kansans were and are conservative Christians who vote exclusively Republican was a parallel reality; not the premise.
To all my conservative friends, from the mouth of an Arch-Free Market Capitalist:
“It’s class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn’t be.”
* CNN Interview, May 25 2005, in arguing the need to raise taxes on the rich.
Sorry, that was Warren Buffet. Third richest man in the world according to Forbes Magazine.
Zombie, I love your essays, but you made a really big mistake:
“The debate about the reality of evolution is over.”
In science the debate about a theory IS NEVER OVER! It cannot be because science breaks if it is. Case in point Classical Mechanics. For 100s of years, it was believed that the universe was ruled by Classical Mechanics. If you knew the position of a particle and forces acting on it you could predict where it would end up forever. This idea was revised in the early part of the last century. Turns out, it only looks like the universe is ruled by Classical Mechanics, we actually live in a Quantum Mechanical universe.
Having the belief that a scientific theory cannot be questioned is NOT scientific, it is dogmatic.
With that said, they need to leave Intelligent Design out, but there is nothing wrong with pointing out the holes in evolution. Maybe one of the kids of they are teaching will grow up and fill that hole. Tell the truth about science, that is all you have to do!
Zombie (or to whom it may concern that agrees with Zombie), if you are a long-time veteran of the “evolution wars” why are you not aware that Creationists and IDers DO accept Natural Selection, but only deny that Natural Selection (lateral change in biodiversity) is indicative of any ascendant change (upward)? You are pushing a couple of lies here, in my opinion. The main one being to equivocate the term Natural Selection with Evolution. Why, O why, are there two (read: 2) terms if they are the same exact thing? You are interchanging them to tie up your false case: there is a Logical Fallacy at play in that. It is typical, and perhaps public enemy number one for this issue. Evolutionists never cease to miss it, I’ve found.
Do yourself a favor and define two terms as exactly as you can: Natural Selection and Evolution.
Boil your error down to this: Intelligent Design supporters and Creationists do not accept, as it has not been shown (but assumed by interpretation), that Natural Selection increases genetic information, so you have wrongfully accused them of denying factual science. In fact, they are more careful to declare what is true, and what is not, it seems. Sorry, to say, if you actually read this, I expect you to keep your blinders on based on your “arguments over” approach.
KevinB pushes a lie to claim Creationists and ID’ers accept natural selection, when many do not. In fact, it’s obvious many do not from the comments to this post.
Tom, as far as I know ALL IDers and Creationists accept Natural Selection. It is that they differentiate, as is necessary, Natural Selection from being equivalent to Evolution. Evolution is not simply “change”, it is the Upward climb of complexity and information in genes. Natural Selection does not account for this (so, it is not Evolution), but accounts for the shuffling and rearranging and repetition of genetic information. One is not the other. If it were, why are there two terms? Evolutionists constantly equivocate these terms in order to knock down the Straw Man that Creationists do not accept Natural Selection.
Evolution (increases of genetic information) does not happen as far as observation. It is assumed and interpreted, and does not fit the evidence as well as Biblical Creationism. Further, a global flood more concisely explains the fossil graveyards and geologic phenomena throughout the world. Also, the Genesis description of Created Kinds of life forms is mark-on of what we DO actually observe in the world: Diverse forms of animals that remain within kinds, though having genetic diversity enough within their Kinds to survive in the different environments of the earth – the Bible indicates that God made the earth first, which would of course mean that Seasons were an institution before God made living things, which would necessarily mean that God would have made his living Creation to have adaptability for a changing world; not fixedness of species, but according to Kinds: according to Kinds, as the Bible says God decided to limit natural change, and as we DO observe in Nature (coincidence?). Also, the command to “be fruitful and multiple” would have little function for fruitfulness if there is no genetic diversity.
Isn’t it something of a phenomenal coincidence that according to Evolutionists the human writers of the Bible, supposedly ignorant men, have gotten so lucky in concocting stories that coincide with modern discoveries and limitations in knowledge?
Noah’s Flood (fossil graveyards, geologic formations), Tower of Babel (dispersion of people, languages), Creation itself (uniqueness and fine-tuning of earth), Created Kinds (limitations of change in biodiversity), Man (having awareness, morality, dominion over animals).
Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution)[1][2] is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[3] This change results from interactions between processes which introduce variation into a population, and other processes which remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic, anatomical, biochemical or behavioural, that is the result of gene–environment interaction.
Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution occurs due to Natural Selection – they do not mean the same thing. If evolution doesn’t occur, how is that antibiotics from 10+ years ago are no longer effective? Evolution is not an ascendant occurance, simply the way to explain the changes among population.
Please use scientific method on ID or creationism, and I’ll be happy to include in a science class. You have absolutely no scientific basis behind any of your statements – not one.
I also find
Elizabeth, perhaps the media or popular culture has taught you to think bacterial resistance to anti-biotics is evolution taking place. When bacteria become resistant to an anti-biotic it is because they lose the function to metabolize the anti-biotic. This only has the appearance of them becoming “more fit”, but it is always a degenerative or neutral adjustment. The great irony in all of this is that Creationist’s claims have actually gone no further than what we observe in Nature, and it is Evolutionists who have made claims for which the evidence does not exist. Darwinian Evolution DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Also, Elizabeth, you make the point of saying that Evolution is not ascendant change, but simply change (whatever it may be) over time. Fair enough, but is it not also fair to find (and say) that Evolution is an idea that life has begun at very simple beginnings and become increasingly complex over time? You agree with that, don’t you? Because you seem to be admitting that there is no evidence for ascendant change, yet also have implied that the scientific evidence (scientific method) is with Evolution, and not with Creation theories. Darwinists must have necessarily, according to your premises, assumed that change have led to greater complexity without direct scientific evidence of ascendant change. Do you not see that this is playing contradictory angles? If you are really on about scientific evidence you would have not accepted that Darwinism is true if there is no direct scientific evidence that change ever increases information, or you would not have discounted the Creationists. You may say that similarities in DNA among certain creatures is evidence of common-descent, but is it not also evidence for common design? You are simply CHOOSING one theory over another. Bias.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/08/31/whats-the-matter-with-texas/#comment-11332
Judicial review is nothing more than being the final court of appeal, it is the penultimate court in the constitution which makes a final decision as to what the law is. It has just been pointed out to you that that power and responsibility is in the constitution.
KevinB
Really? I can back up my statement about bacterial resistance with science. Can you? Please feel free to provide links. How do they lose the function to metabolize? What exactly happens to cause that?
What is your definition of Evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) that does not occur?
Elizabeth, here is a simple short article that explains my objection to anti-biotic resistance being evolution. I suggest that you read it, and see if you actually would disagree with any of it, before you reject it out of hand. It is just an article, not a peer-reviewed essay or anything. It doesn’t, strictly speaking, meet the criteria I think you want, so it will probably not open your eyes to anything, except hopefully to the fact that Creationist’s claims DO hold water. Do you understand Validity? The fact that Creationists will not accept Evolution based on the known evidence is perfectly Valid if you are willing to admit it, and understand their position. (Remember, in “evolution” I mean the theory in which things increase genetic potential over time. Not simply the term “change”.)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria
I read the article. As as scientist, she’s making an absolute statement that any mutation results in bacteria that don’t function correctly? Every single mutuation or gene transfer causes that? That’s a pretty sweeping statement, and again, I see no scientific back up for this. No scientist worth her salt can make that kind of absolute statement, and she completely loses credibility by making it.
In regard to your earlier comment about how life begins – that’s not evolution, and I’m not going there. I don’t have enough knowledge to speak with any authority, and don’t want to try. I don’t know how bacteria in the primordial soup became fish/amphibians/lizards/etc. But I do know it was postulated that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. If that’s the case, we would find dinosaurs with the bone structure of birds or feathers on dinosaurs. Guess what? We did. Dinosaurs evolving into chickens is not an example of ascendant change, but of change.
“You may say that similarities in DNA among certain creatures is evidence of common-descent, but is it not also evidence for common design? You are simply CHOOSING one theory over another. Bias.” My bias is towards evidence supported by scientific method.
Dr. Miller is a well-spoken Microbiologist who has written some easy to understand material regarding evolution. He admits publicly that he is religious and sees nothing in science that contradicts his belief in God. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
God gave us the brains to figure out that the rocks are 4 billion years old. Isn’t denying that knowledge a denial of God?
By the way, I sincerely appreciate your civility. We can disagree, but we can do it in a polite fashion.
What’s the Matter with Texas? Nothing except for: Texas Freedom Network (TFN)
In 1995, TFN was founded by Cecile Richards, daughter of Texas ‘ liberal Democrat Governor, Ann Richards. Cecile is the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and still serves on the TFN Board of Directors. Cecile was deputy chief of staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and worked with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEIU is closely associated with ACORN.
When Cecile left for Washington, D. C., Samantha Smoot took Cecile’s place. When Samantha left for Washington , D. C. in 2005, she went to work for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual organization in the country.
TFN, Planned Parenthood, and the Human Rights Campaign work together as “triplet sisters.”
The Chair of the TFN Education Fund is Janis Pinelli, who gave campaign contributions to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emily’s List, the Texas Democratic Party, and Rick Noriega for Governor.
Also on the TFN Education Board of Directors is Dale Linebarger who is treasurer. He is the Senior Advisor to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson. This firm started collecting debts for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2006 after a generous lobbying effort of half a million dollars to pressure Congress to hire outside bill collectors instead of requiring the IRS staff to do the job more inexpensively (Business Week, 8.25.06). Dale Linebarger made political contributions to Obama, Ruben Hinojosa, Al Franken, Lloyd A. Doggett, Ken Salazar, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Border Health PAC.
Why does Border Health PAC sound familiar? According to Texas Monthly (Aug. 2009), Border Health PAC gives politicians huge contributions “to order expensive medical procedures” and has come under scrutiny because of the New Yorker (June 2009) article that stated the costs of treating Medicare patients in McAllen are twice the national average. “The primary cause of McAllen ’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine.” Dale Linebarger gave monthly contributions to Border Health PAC throughout 2008.
Rev. Dr. Larry Bethune is also on the TFN Board Education Board of Directors. He is the senior pastor of University Baptist Church ( Austin , Texas ). As stated on its website, UBC is sometimes “in conflict with the views of the wider religious community and secular society…in the 1990s it ordained a homosexual deacon.” Bethune has stated that he opposes “attempts to dilute, distort, or censor the teaching of evolution in biology textbooks.”
Also on the TFN Education Board of Directors is Diane Iresone (Clinical Social Worker) who has given political contributions to Obama, John Kerry, Lloyd A. Doggett, John Edwards, Emily’s List, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton.
Rebecca Lightsey is on the TFN Education Board of Directors and is an attorney and executive director of Texas Appleseed that focuses on social justice issues. Lightsey worked on Governor Ann Richards’ staff and supported Democrat Rick Noriega for Governor of Texas .
Rhonda Gerson is the Chair of TFN and has given campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton, Democrat Senator Carl Levin, and Emily’s List.
Texas Representative Donna Howard (Democrat) is a board member of TFN. NARAL Pro-Choice has given Howard a 100% rating. Texas Eagle Forum gave Howard a rating of 8% in the 2009 legislative session.
In the essay, I already identify the Texas Freedom Network as a liberal organization. That’s not news.
It’s also well-known that leftist organizations are tightly interconnected – whatever group you’re in, you are never more than two degrees of separation removed from The Obama campaign, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, Emily’s List, etc. A highly connected network.
So while everything you wrote may be true, it is not surprising.
But all of that should be irrelevant — because attacking the messenger is a very weak form of argumentation, and should be avoided.
The more important question is: Are the Texas school board agenda items listed by the TFN accurate? As far as I can tell, in most cases, yes. Except for a couple of more questionable entries (which I discuss in the essay), the TFN’s list is pretty much true.
What isn’t valid is the faux-outrage they express about some of the things voted on, which turn out to be not very outrageous at all.
“In the case of the left, the ultimate goal is to overthrow the United States as we know it.”
And it worked. Our schools have created generations of people who by their very existence refute the founding documents of the United States: the students of the leftist teachers no longer wish to be free. If you don’t wish to be free, then science (free thought), capitalism (free labor), and democracy (free politics) are unnecessary. Socialism, therefore, is inevitable. And it is. It’s too late now.
“It is against this backdrop that the Texas State Board of Education engages in its culture wars. Yes, the TSBE utterly contaminates its efforts with infuriating proposals to wipe away any mention of evolution and of the United States’ status as an explicitly secular nation. And for many people (including myself until recently), that’s enough to disqualify Texas from the debate.”
While I have little argument with your position in regard to the ID vs Darwinism debate, to argue that the Founders intended this country to be an “explicitly secular nation” would seem to require a complete rejection of the entire history of their time. All thirteen of the original colonies and the States they became had Charter and or State Constitutional preferences for religion with the majority (8 out of 13) having official state religions. Many of the State Constitutions included language on religious tolerance, but that language was either implicitly or explicitly limited to sectarian variations of Christianity. Religious tests for holding public offices and other perquisites of citizenship were not fully removed from State Constitutions until well after the Civil War.
Although the Federal Constitution and the First Amendment may have guided the States to eventually abandon their religious preferences, AFAIK neither was ever legally invoked to compel them to do so.
The collected writings of virtually every one of the original Founders include both public statements and private letters that express some version of the opinion that the type of republic they were endeavoring to construct could not long endure absent a population fundamentally guided by religious piety.
As you correctly pointed out there have been a number of Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted the Constitution to mandate the elimination of religious references from all levels of government, but the entire history of the USA in the 18th and 19th centuries is incontrovertible that the Founders never intended the religious liberty clause to be incorporated to the States and beyond.
This article has nice round up of the developing policies of religious freedom in the Constitutions of the original thirteen States.
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069
Thanks for the comment.
While what you say may be true, there are all sort of things that were tolerated and/or presumed to be self-evident in the 18th and 19th centuries which we now deem completely unacceptable, either based on the as-written text of the Constitution, or on later amendments to the Constitution to rectify glaring flaws, or on self-evident principles which reflect changing cultural attitudes through the centuries.
The most obvious of these changes from “the way things were” back then barely need repeating. Slavery, between 1776 and, say, the 1850s was considered to be a matter of states’ rights, and no matter how much the Northerners and Christian abolitionists disliked it, was deemed to be Constitutional and beyond our ability to eliminate — until (obviously) the events of the 1860s. Voting discrimination, barring women, non-property owners, ex-slaves, the illiterate, etc. from voting, was also standard operating procedure across the US until the early 20th century. And so on and so on with many similar examples.
And yet no one today is arguing for the return of slavery or voting discrimination based on the principle that “the Founding Fathers were OK with it” or “the Constitution as originally written did not explicitly forbid it” or “Founding Father #XYZ said in a letter that he accepted his need to own slaves, and scoffed at the idea of women voting.”
Eras change. Our interpretation of the Constitution changes. Attitudes about what is self-evident change.
The Founding Fathers never imagined to what an extent a multicultural nation this would become, far beyond the minor sectarian differences of the various Protestant denominations of the original 13 colonies. The arrival of millions of Jewish, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Orthodox and Buddhist immigrants, the flowering of unexpectedly popular new unique religions/cults/spiritualities like Mormonism, Scientology, and the New Age movement, the further fracturing of Protestantism into even more subdivisions, and perhaps most importantly the rise of agnosticism, atheism and conscious secularism among a major portion of the population, all these would have amazed and shocked the Founding Fathers.
And perhaps, having seen what history hath wrought, they would have seen the wisdom of The Establishment Clause and heartily agreed that, considering the new state of affairs in the US, it would indeed be a wise decision to interpret it as the Supreme Court has interpreted it over the last 70 or so years, lest we return to the era of religious oppression which so many original Americans were fleeing.
My recitation of the history was not meant to be an endorsement of those early attitudes, but only to point out that the clear intent was to limit the stricture against government and religious involvement to the Federal level. The issue of crosses and copies of the Ten Commandments on municipal or state property was never meant to be a matter of federal purview and the,in my view, sorely mistaken decisions that have allowed them to become so are of a piece with all the others statist’s attacks on what BHO, that great Constitutional scholar, calls the “negative rights” of the Constitution. The problem is that the “negative” nature of the Constitution was and is meant to be its prime focus. The Constitution was made to protect our liberty and freedom from the government it mandated, not to provide a bludgeon for some to inflict their prejudices and faux desire to be free from discomfort on the entire country.
Wow, this topic stirred up a lot of comments (must confess I did not read them all).
I always get blown away by both sides of this debate and how they tend to misinterpret the 1st amendment – stretching it in both directions…
I love your writing style really loving this site.