Why send your children to private school? [Archive]

View Full Version : Why send your children to private school?

Torvald Von Mansee

05-17-10, 02:15 PM

Because of people like this woman:

http://m.gawker.com/5540483/meet-the-crusader-behind-texas-textbook-whitewash

I guess there's a reason Rice is the only elite university in Texas.

SteamWake

05-17-10, 02:39 PM

A liberal showing concearn over 're-writing' history.... interesting.

AVGWarhawk

05-17-10, 02:40 PM

Remember that thing called the slave trade? Well, it turns out what you learned was all wrong, because it wasn't some evil buying and selling of human beings, it was simply "Atlantic triangular trade."

:shifty: Really? After all these years........:doh:

nikimcbee

05-17-10, 02:46 PM

evangelical Christian

oh noz! run for the hills.

Carotio

05-17-10, 03:03 PM

Someone should let her spend time polish the big number one. Thus, she can't talk rubbish at the same time...

Seriously, that was some of the most noncense, I have ever read... :doh:

Snestorm

05-17-10, 03:24 PM

The pendulem swings!

It's been pulled too far Left for decades. Peiple have seen the failure, and the results of socialy indoctrinating their children with an agenda that is extreme left.
Now it will swing to the extreme right.

It would be nice if one day this pendulem could stop in the middle, at a place called Truth!

My father always told me that if I learned to read well I could pick my own teacher, to teach me any subject in the world, at a great learning center called The Library.
If "education" continues to embrace social indoctrination (left or right) this may very well be a viable alternative for some.

Tchocky

05-17-10, 03:37 PM

Pfft, libraries are just government intrusion in the traditional free-book-lending market. Pareto efficiency my arse.

Snestorm

05-17-10, 03:41 PM

If libraries fail, there are always book stores.

Tribesman

05-17-10, 04:00 PM

Wow a graduate of Pat Robertsons university for fruitcakes being in charge of education.
I wonder what the textbooks will say about seismic activity. Is it caused by abortions, pagans or homosexuality?
I do like her adviser from the Wallkbuilders though, America must have biblical law and being a good fire and brimstone type he of course advocates the good old OT law:up:

DarkFish

05-17-10, 05:01 PM

The pendulem swings!

It's been pulled too far Left for decades. Peiple have seen the failure, and the results of socialy indoctrinating their children with an agenda that is extreme left.
Now it will swing to the extreme right.

It would be nice if one day this pendulem could stop in the middle, at a place called Truth!Funny, while I agree with your pendulum theory, I think the pendulum has been pulled too far right:lol:
Compared to Dutch politics even Obama is relatively rightist.

I think you should never let religion control education. Let people make up their own minds about what god they should believe in, if any. And definitely don't educate it at public schools. There are people there who've got different beliefs, you know:doh:

Platapus

05-17-10, 06:41 PM

America can only flourish economically through "minimal government intrusion and taxation."

But she wants the government (state school system) to push this agenda on to children.

That's rich. :har:

Hey, Ms "minimal government intrusion" how about the schools just concentrate on traditional education standards and let the parents handle the social education? Ok?

Because if Christians aren't involved in the indoctrination of our youth.....

Well, there it is.

One more reason why I would not like to go back to Texas. :nope:

Snestorm

05-17-10, 07:05 PM

Hey, Ms "minimal government intrusion" how about the schools just concentrate on traditional education standards and let the parents handle the social education? Ok?

Here we are united.

Purging the schools of Social Indoctrination towards the present agenda IS a good idë.
Replacing the existing Social Indoctrination agenda with a new Social Indoctrination agenda is NOT a good idë. It only serves to replace one wrong with another wrong.

That was a realy good post, Platapus.

Ducimus

05-17-10, 07:24 PM

Jesus freaks like the lady in question in the linked article belong in Private schools. Not a public one. If the school is public, it is state run, and we have this little thing called "seperation of church and state" here in the US, that should be maintained..

Furthermore, if i had a kid, and wanted him to have evangelical horse**** ramrooded down his gullet, i'll send them to a private school.

CaptainHaplo

05-17-10, 07:46 PM

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

Ducimus

05-17-10, 08:01 PM

I don't have to. It's implied by the 1st amendment. No i'm not going to get into a constitutional debate with you. No you are NOT going to change my mind. So don't even try. My hatred for evangical ram rodding runs VERY deep, starting from childhood, and has risen to a degree that defies description. I have about as much tolerance and respect for those hypocritical bastards as they have for other people, which is to say, NONE.

Platapus

05-17-10, 08:06 PM

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

Does it have to be in the constitution?

Our country is defined by more than just the constitution.

Ducimus

05-17-10, 08:23 PM

Some of the historical rewrites mentioned..... They CANT be serious. No way something this blatant can be real, can it? Are they really that deranged?

Seriously, taking a look at a couple that offer specfics...

- Slave trade to Atlantic triangular trade? what a GROSS euphism and avoidance of the real topic there. They were slaves right? We were trading em right?

- Civil Rights Movement to "unrealistic expectations of equal outcomes". What kind of white pride inspired horsecrap is this? Nevermind we have a black president now, minor detail!

This article is probably more to incite folks like myself who have a real deep seeded dislike of evangelical doings .

CaptainHaplo

05-17-10, 10:27 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny - I see no implication of a SEPERATION of church and state implied...

Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights.

Also - its amazing how people get all worked up over an article.... would really be wise for people to look at how the "GAWKER" even describes itself....

"Gossip from Manhattan and the Beltway to Hollywood and the Valley."

Just so you all can understand:

Gossip is defined by dictionary.com as "idle talk or rumor" and "hearsay"....
In other words, you have nothing but a lot of unsubstantiated and non-referenced rubbish thrown out by a left wing rumor mill with the intent to incite outrage....

Boy did some of ya'll fall for that....

Sailor Steve

05-17-10, 11:04 PM

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...
Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.

No, the Constitution does not directly use that phrase, but the man behind it, the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the First Amendment, James Madison, certainly believed it.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
-Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
-Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
-Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

The only mention of religion within the body of the Constitution is Article VI, Section 3, which says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The founders were very aware of the domination religion had held over every government in Europe. Most of the people who had come here seeking "religious freedom" had then enforced intolerance of anyone who disagreed, even the legendary Pilgrims. Roger Williams was banished from Massachussetts by those same Puritans for preaching religious freedom.

But I have a personal question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

Diopos

05-17-10, 11:20 PM

...
Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

And if so which "Church" would that exactly be?

Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant flavor #1 , Protestant flavor #2, ... Protestant flavor #57, ...

.

Skybird

05-18-10, 02:42 AM

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/index.html

Do not complain that again I repeat this link. Same questions repeated ad nauseum deserve not different answers, but the answer just being repeated as often.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/separation.html

Separation of Church and State

The words 'Separation of Church and State' are not expressly written in the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Rather it is based on Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the 'Establishment ' clause that James Madison introduced in the 1st amendment.
Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
First Amendment to the Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment

'Seperation of Church and State': a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
In a letter to the Rev. Samuel Miller (Jan. 23, 1808)
"I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted [forbid] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises…."

James Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug. 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731)

More thoughts from Madison:

"...the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" [Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819]
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" [Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822].
U.S. Supreme Court

Hugo Black U.S. Supreme Court Justice
"The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion."
[Majority opinion Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
[Emerson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a state nor the federal government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws nor impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of a God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."
[Torcaso v. Watkins (1961)]

Warren Burger, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court:

'The Lemon Test', in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). It Determines if a law is permissible under the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

A law must have a secular purpose.
It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.
More
"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion."
[Melvin v. Easley (1860)]

"First, this Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.... Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another."
[Justice Tom C. Clark, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)]

"Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of nonreligion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
[Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 (1968)]

Others

Ulysses S. Grant

"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separated."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

Was the United States founded as a Christian Nation?

The Christian majority

It is true that that Christianity was the majority religion of the first european colonists, it was the majority religion at the time of the country's founding and has remained by far the dominant religion throughout the history of our country. There is no doubt that the country was settled by Christians and has been populated by a Christian majority.
The statement that is commonly made is that "The United States was founded as a Christian Nation". To examine this statement we will look at the founding documents: the Declaration of independence, the Articles of Confederartion, the Constitution and the First Amendment. As well as the Treaty of Tripoli and The beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
Declaration of Independence

(transcript) (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html) There are no specific reference to Christianity or Jesus in the Declaration of independence. There are a few references to a 'Nature's God' who is the creator of life, giver of rights and 'supreme Judge of the world' but that is rather vague..
"...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
Notice that it specifically describes 'Natures God', this is a more generic idea of God, this is god as nature.
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
This does describes God as a creator of life and giver of rights but goes no further.
"...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"
Here God is the 'Supreme Judge'.
All three of these examples would fit into nearly any organized religion or idea of god but especially that of Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) and Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism) due to the lack of specificity.
It is expected that people of the time would speak of a god, there was little to no doubt at that time of God's existence, but there was plenty of doubt about Christianity among the framers. In order to justify their defiance of the King they had to invoke a higher authority and make the case that they were endowed with the higher power's blessing.
Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation were the first constitution of the United States. During 1776–1777. In a sentance stating the date it speaks of 'our Lord'.
"on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord..."
This is the only mention of God or Jesus in the Articles and although clearly a Christian practice, it was a common way of writing the date. On March 4, 1789, the new U.S. Constitution took effect, superseding the Articles of Confederation and giving them no legal standing.
The Constitution

(transcript (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html))
The 1787 constitution is a nearly godless document. It mentions neither God, nor Christianity outside of a reference to the date using the Christian calandar. It does however have a provision against requiring specific religious ideas as a qualification for office.
Article VI, Section 3, US Constitution
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Article. VII, US Constitution
"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven"
It certainly can be argued that this sentence sets up The United States under 'our Lord' Jesus Christ, but when viewed in context it takes on a much lesser importance. The sentence is in the last section of the fourth and final page of the Constitution and was a common way of referencing the Christian calendar. 'In the year of our Lord' translated to latin is 'Anno Domini' which is commonly abbreviated 'A.D.' and is still used to this day by most of the western world when stating the year. It is merely a tradition and holds no religious significance. (more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini))
First Amendment to the Constitution

If the United States were set up as a Christian Nation would it grant equal rights to all religions?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Treaty of Tripoli, article 11

A 1797 treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, ratified by the US Congress and signed by President John Adams. (more) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)
"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 tranquility of Musselmen..."
The Founders

Even though the majority of Americans at the time were Christians, several of the key figures in politics were Deists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). They rejected the specific beliefs of religion and Christianity.
John Adams

2nd president, Proposed and signed the Treaty of Tripoli
"Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1500 years."
letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted by Norman Cousins in In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 106-7, from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles."
letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

Thomas Jefferson

3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites." [Notes on Virginia]
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813].
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].
"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." [Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363]
James Madison

4th president, influential in the Constitutional Convention, Proposed the 1st Amendment
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." [April 1, 1774]
Benjamin Franklin

Signer of Declaration of Independence, signer of Constitution
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
[Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758]
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." [Franklin's Autobiography]
George Washington

1st president
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/trust.html

In God we trust?

The original motto

"E Pluribus Unum"
Latin for "One from many"
In 1776, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson submit their design to congress for 'the Great Seal of the United States' with the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
In 1782, The Secretary of Congress submits a design of an eagle with a heart-shaped shield and a scroll bearing the motto "E Pluribus Unum".
The seal is approved and used on some coinage in1795.
The new motto

"In God We Trust"
In 1814, Francis Scott Key pens his poem 'Defence of Fort McHenry' which will eventually become known as 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. It contains the verse "and this be our motto: In God is our trust."
In 1860, during the Civil War, Protestant denominations organize the 'National Reform Association', which aimed to amend the Constitution to "declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ."
In 1861, Rev. M. R. Watkinson writes Salmon P. Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a letter suggesting "the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins". He suggests "God, Liberty, Law" as a motto on a "beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object".
In 1864, Congress approves "In God We Trust" for use on one-cent and two-cent coins.
In 1865, Congress acts to place the motto on all coins.
In 1889, The Star-Spangled Banner is recognized for use by the Navy.
In 1916, The Star-Spangled Banner is recognized for use by the President.
In 1931, The Star-Spangled Banner is made the national anthem by a congressional resolution and is signed by President Herbert Hoover.
In 1957, the motto is first used on paper money.
On July 30, 1956, a bill is passed by congress and signed by the president declaring "In God We Trust" the national motto of the United States.
Challanges

In 1970, The constitutionality of the motto is challenged (Aronow v. United States). The Circut court determined it "has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion".
In 1979, Madalyn Murray O'Hair of American (http://atheists.org/) Atheists (http://atheists.org/) challanges the motto (O'Hair v. Blumenthal). The circut court ruled "the slogan was secular".
In 1994, The Freedom From Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/) challenged the motto citing it's survey that showed a majority of americans consider the motto religious. lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial

US Treasury: History of 'In God We Trust' (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html)

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/under_god.html

One Nation, Under God?

The Pledge of Allegiance

Original adopted October 12, 1892, 'Columbus Day'.
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amended June 14, 1924, 'Flag Day' to include "the flag of the United States of America".
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Amended in 1954, during the Cold War McCarthyism, at the request of Christian and anti-Communist groups to include "under God".
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Challenged in 2003, Michael Newdow, a California Atheist, Doctor and Lawyer successfully sued over the words 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance being recited in his daughters classroom. He won in the 9th circuit appeals court in a 2-1 decision. The US Supreme Court threw out the case on a technicality.

The 'G' word

The use of a capitalized 'G' in "God" is commonly considered the specific Judeo-Christian god.
The use of 'God' may disclude all non Judeo-Christian believers, as well as polytheists (belief in more than one god) and agnostics (unsure of god).
The use of 'God' does disclude Atheists.

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/principals.html

Was the United States founded on Christian Principals?

Well let's look at some of the founding principals of the country:

Democracy/ Republic?

The ideas of Democracy and Represantation first began in Pagan Greece in 5th century BC and later began to take hold in western europe in the late 1700's after religion's power in government had lessoned.
Secular Government?

People can argue endlessly over the entanglements of religion and government but for the most part our government was set up as a secular government and has remained mostly separate from religious affairs.
Freedom of Religion?

It is in no religion's interest to make it easy for people to join or explore other faiths.
Separation of Church and State?

History has shown that Religion loves to mingle with Government. Religion likes to have the heavy hand of Governent behind it and Government likes the unquestionable blessing of Religion.
Moral Principals

Unequal rights?

Even thought the Declaration of Independence speaks of all men being created equal, it was not taken literally.

Blacks and Native Americans were not equal with whites,
Women were not equal with men
Men who were not land owners were not equal with those who were.
Many of these ideas of inequality (slavery, subservient women) can be supported by the bible but most modern Christians would not consider these as 'Christian Principals'. [Romans 7:2 (http://bible.cc/romans/7-2.htm), Timothy 2:11 (http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-11.htm), 1 Corinthians 14:34 (http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-34.htm)]
Slavery?

Like stated above, slavery is supported by the bible but most would not consider that a good Christian Principal. [Leviticus 25:44 (http://bible.cc/leviticus/25-44.htm), Titus 2:9 (http://bible.cc/titus/2-9.htm), Ephesians 6:5 (http://bible.cc/ephesians/6-5.htm)]

U.S. State Laws That discriminate against people who don't believe in a god

Arkansas (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#ak)
Maryland (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#md)
Massachusetts (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#ma)
North Carolina (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#nc)
Pennsylvania (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#pa)
South Carolina (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#sc)
Tennessee (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#tn)
Texas (http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/states.html#tx)
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arkansas

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 19, sect. 1 of the 1874 constitution
Maryland

"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.. nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Bill of Rights: Article 36
Massachusetts

"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: herefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."
Declaration of Rights: Article III
North Carolina

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."
Constitution Article 6 Section 8
Pennsylvania

"No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth".
Declaration of Rights Article 1 Section 4
South Carolina

"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."
Article 4 Section 2
Tennessee

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Bill of Rights: Article 9 Section 4
Texas

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Article 1 - Bill of Rights: Section 4

Tribesman

05-18-10, 02:52 AM

Slave trade to Atlantic triangular trade? what a GROSS euphism and avoidance of the real topic there. They were slaves right? We were trading em right?

But you must understand that her "education" advisor explains that slavery is justified by the bible, after all as they want to "return" America to biblical law will the biblical slavery laws make a "comeback".
I do like the bit about the growth of the abolition movement (which they incredibly claim led the world). It appears the growth in the abolition movement was due to Americas slave laws not being aligned with biblical slave law which meant the inconsistancy made slavery too difficult to reform gradually or peacefully:doh:

Bilge_Rat

05-18-10, 10:00 AM

two thoughts here, none related to the thread topic:

1. . The separation of church and state is implied by the text of the U.S. constitution of 1787, most notably this part:

First Amendment to the Constitution

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

In 1787, the standard practice in all European countries was to have one state religion imposed on all the inhabitants. People who practiced other religions were tolerated, but discriminated against. I seem to recall that there were heated discussions on whether the U.S. should have a state religion, but this was abandoned in favour of the present text which made it clear that the U.S. government could not favour one religion over another, a quite revolutionary concept at the time;

2. Canada was a British colony at the time. Most of the inhabitants were french catholics. In 1763, when Canada became a British colony, the British guaranteed the French, the free exercise of their catholic religion and guaranteed the legal status of the catholic church. This was also quite unorthodox at the time since the current practice was to force all the inhabitants of a conquered country to convert to the state religion. Of course, the British had done this for practical reasons since they knew it would be dificult to rule Canada without the tacit consent of the Canadiens. The U.S. rebels made many overture to Canada to join the U.S. Many of these were rebuffed because the Canadiens did not trust the U.S. leaders to respect their religious freedoms. They had more faith in King George.

Sailor Steve

05-18-10, 10:30 AM

I reread Haplo's post, and I would like to address one idea that hinges on which way you look at it.

Too many people love to try to say this is a freedom FROM religion - which it is not - it is the freedom OF religion. If your religion is that you want to worship the almighty spaghetti monster - you can. But freedom OF religion - and the FREE EXERCISE thereof means that there cannot be a prohibition of religion in government - or else your limiting that free exercise. That does not mean that government can establish a religion - aka force you to conform to one - but it also should not limit anyone's ability to practice theirs as they see fit provided it does not infringe on another persons rights...
I have heard the phrase "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion" used before, and I think you mean it a different way than I do. When I hear that line I fear people wanting to enforce religion on all. You seem to fear that "freedom from religion" means removing religion entirely. I think it depends on who is saying it.

Same with "Separation of Church and State". That phrase means that the government doesn't interfere with religions, and religions don't interfere with the government. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's exactly what the founders wanted, so yes it is directly implied in the First Amendment. What part of that do you disagree with?

So the question really comes down to what the speaker means when he uses that phrase.

Skybird

05-18-10, 11:22 AM

The confusion here is because of a very simple reason: some people think their"freedom" includes that their freedom goes beyond that of others, and that is because they claim that freedom has to be a totally unlimited, unregulated quality. This claim for unlimited own freedom necessarily brings people into conflict with others - simply because there are other people. Such conflict can only be avoided were both sides understand that there is a natural borderline for own freedom - which is set to be were own freedom starts to limit the freedom of others.

In shorter words, what such people really mean when they talk about "freedom", is this: "My freedom". Freedom of others is of considerably less concern as long as they do not join one's own peer-group.

The causative principle, which in this context would mean that somebody limiting the freedom of others for the sake of his own superior freedom is responsible for the conflict resulting from this and thus has to solve it by stopping to behave the way he does, gets ignored, explicitly excused or silently implied on the grounds of an argument that tries to justify such violation by ideological/religious claims that include that one has a religious/ideologic "obligation" to actively missionise and spread one's own belief, faith, ideology. I must not explicitly describe how much violence, cruelty, barbarism and inhumane terror has been caused by this - history speaks for itself.

Freedom of religion is freedom to practice one's own religion - but only as far and in a communal context where the form of it's practicing does not force others - who do not want to participate in that - to make extra concessions, to change their own habits, or needing to adjust their own lifestyle. In other words: freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion. You cannot separate the two without installing tyranny and supression. Nobody has the right to demand others that they have to take note of oneself practicing one's religion. An if others force me to take note of them doing their thing, instead of me being allowed to just stay unaware of their practicing, I rate that as an attack on my personal freedom and rights, and I react accordingly - by counterattacking. Because my right to be "free" does not count less than theirs, and when they cause the annoyance, then it is up to them to stop it - it is not up to me to adapt to them. Again, this is elementary reason in form of the causative principle.

I think this is the intention of what the American historic papers and paragraphs in the accoprding documents have to say on the relation between state and religion.

therefore I usually ignore and leave in peace all religious people who practice and do their thing inside their own small community of fellow believers, or inside their private sphere, as long as they do not actively, without being demanded, approach me with their thing (whatever it is), or worse: as long as they do not try to change communal structures and the constituional order of the nation I live in (by invading the curriculum of the education system for example, or forming legislation, and more), to bring it in accordance with their faith.

If there are two people, and the one plays his radio so loud that he annoys the neighbourhood, and the other guy as well: what is the appropriate demand to make: that all others have to move away ("if you don't like it, get away!"), or that they have to play their own radios louder, or have to get used to it - or the one with the loud radio having to reduce the volume of his radio...?

Especially religious bigots and moralizers do not understand this, because in a way they all are supremacists. They run their life by a principle of assuming that they are better than the others and thus the others have to give ground. And even when these moralizers are less fanatic in their action and leaving others alone when being demanded - you still have a high chance of getting that one last greeting of theirs, saying: "You may not believe in my god, but even in your disbelief my god still loves you (that fantastic my god is)". Which only on the surface is a kind phrase, but in reality displays the utmost arrogance and supremacism possible to human thinking. What that somebody is telling in fact when using versions of that phrase is simply this:

"I am better than you, you poor little creature."

Religion. Lovely.

frau kaleun

05-18-10, 12:12 PM

Aramike

05-18-10, 12:41 PM

I have about as much tolerance and respect for those hypocritical bastards as they have for other people, which is to say, NONE. Funny, I've met far more tolerant Christians than atheists, and I'm one of the latter.

Sailor Steve

05-18-10, 12:44 PM

gimpy117

05-18-10, 01:37 PM

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791. Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances."
When it is not allowed to make laws establishing a state religion or preventing one...I'd say were pretty much supposed to be impartial as religion goes

August

05-18-10, 03:01 PM

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?

I've met a few who sounded like religious fanatics (anti-religious fanatics?), but by-and-large most atheists I've met wouldn't hurt anyone who disagreed with them.

Hitler and Stalin were athiests. It'd be wrong to imply that non believers are any less murderous than anyone else. Religion is just a handy excuse, a non religious excuse would serve just as well.

Skybird

05-18-10, 03:35 PM

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?

Careful there. While with religious wars we mean wars that religions intentionally started on behalf of religions and their dogma, "atheists" hardly launch wars on behalf of atheism, but many non-religious names in history who waged wars for different ideas, for example Hitler, will not be seen different by pro-religion-people here. I just wait for somebody listing Hitler and claiming German fascism to have been a war with the goal to spread atheism as a military objective. Which of course is pretty much nonsense. Spreading atheism like religion tries to spread its dogma was no explicit goal of the German war against Poland, France, Britain, Russia, etc.

One should differ between the goal of spreading atheism itself, and trying to acchieve something else (for example establishing one's own rulership over a territory) while just happening to be atheist. But the religious crowd usually does not make this difference - it allows them to attack more easily and linking all evil to atheism, ignoring the evil linked to religion anyway.

Aramike

05-18-10, 03:59 PM

Really? How many holy wars have atheists started? Burnings at the stake?Read my statement again, because your response makes no sense on its face.

Besides, August responded perfectly.

Ducimus

05-18-10, 03:59 PM

But I have a personal question. Let's assume for argument's sake that you are right. There is now no separation of Church and State. What does that mean to you? What changes will you make?

I'm curious.

My guess would be a theocracy, kinda like Iran, only christian.

Funny, I've met far more tolerant Christians than atheists, and I'm one of the latter.

Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it.

Tribesman

05-18-10, 04:05 PM

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.
Who wrote Mein Kampf then?
I suppose it must have be some other Hitler August is on about as that nazi fella went on about the lord the creator and fulfilling gods will, not to mention the core of christianity as the moral guide to the nation and indispensible as the soul of the german people.
Yep definately a different Hitler as that would be damn strange language for an atheist to be spouting eh.

Aramike

05-18-10, 04:15 PM

Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it. Tolerence isn't about someone attempting to influence your belief system to reflect theirs. Tolerence is allowing someone to exist peacefully despite a difference in beliefs. And, certainly, while their are intolerent Christians, most just live and let live - sure, they may not *LIKE*, say, gays, but they certainly aren't attempting to infringe their existance.

Atheists are quite the opposite, in general - many want to remove any and all vestiges of religion from any place they may see it, even though the simple sight of most Christian symbology does nothing to infringe upon an atheist.

In my personal experience, most Christians are fairly pleasant people to be around - most self-proclaimed atheists (although the people I'm referring to are more appropriately termed "anti-theist"), on the other hand, come off as condescending dolts who's rationale for their own perspective is, quite sadly and humorously, fatally flawed logically.

PS: Oh, and I've had plenty of people try to "force" their beliefs on me, and I've said no and moved on. Simple. I've even had someone try to sell me a candy bar while I was entering the grocery store. Oh no!!!

If you mean "force" as something stronger than what I'm implying, than you should reserve your hate for those particular people - not generalize an entire group because of those idiots. In the end, doing so makes you the smaller person, as that's akin to saying that because a black guy mugged you, all blacks should be afforded no tolerance.

Platapus

05-18-10, 06:09 PM

My guess would be a theocracy, kinda like Iran, only christian.

Apparently you haven't had people try and force their beliefs upon you. I have seen just that, through manipulation of the community, the legal system, and physically. Everything has to be THEIR way and no one elses. Tolerance for others? I have yet to see it.

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist. :nope:

Ducimus

05-18-10, 06:28 PM

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist. :nope:

I'll never understand why those filled with religious zeal cannot live and let live. If i was interested in what they had to say, i would go to them and ask. Shoving my face into it only results in repulse and disgust.

Sailor Steve

05-18-10, 06:45 PM

Read my statement again, because your response makes no sense on its face.

Besides, August responded perfectly.
Many leaders claiming to come from one faith or another, or even no faith, have started wars for various reasons. Only believers go to war in the name of one god or another. Hitler's and Stalin's objectives were political, as were a good many others, not matter what their claimed faith was. Only the faithful kill people for being unholy, or of the wrong faith.

That said, intolerance is always based in a strong belief in something, be it religious, political or racial. It's not exclusive to any one group, but I see it as being much stronger in those with strong beliefs.

Tribesman

05-18-10, 06:46 PM

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist.
You should go out less often, you must just be missing them when they call on the rounds of the neighbourhood to convert people to their errrr.......non-religion.

Aramike

05-18-10, 07:12 PM

Many leaders claiming to come from one faith or another, or even no faith, have started wars for various reasons. Only believers go to war in the name of one god or another. Hitler's and Stalin's objectives were political, as were a good many others, not matter what their claimed faith was. Only the faithful kill people for being unholy, or of the wrong faith.What's your point?

Humans have used contruct after construct (religious/social/politcal) in attempts to subjugate one another since the dawn of our species.

In any case, this has nothing to do with my point, which was that, in my experience, atheists are more intolerent than Christians.

Aramike

05-18-10, 07:16 PM

Funny, I have never had anyone knock on my door and try to convince me to become an atheist. :nope:So what? What about the insurance salesman? What about kids selling candy for school fundraisers?

If someone is not welcome, just say no and shut the door.

Offering religion, candy, insurance, etc., is NOT intolerent. That term, however, specifically describes the people that want to shut the former down.

CaptainHaplo

05-18-10, 07:59 PM

Haplo, I challenge you, or anyone, to find any mention of church, God or Christ in the constitution.

Please note how the Constitution was signed (underlined portion my emphasis):

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"

Source: http://constitutionus.com/

Its in there - specifically as a reference to the religiously held birth year of Jesus no less - just not where you expected it. Yes - I am fully aware of the fact that was the normal language of the day - but that language IS religious, IS in the constitution - and IS in specific reference to God - and in fact IS in reference to the Xtian God at that.....

Now - to the question of what I would change. Simple - the 1st amendment would be used as it is listed. IF a person is elected as required by law to an office, he is not required to check his morals (which are bounded as much in his religion - or lack of it - as anything else) at the door. This means that its not the job of government to be involved in anything religious - but there is no prohibition on religion acting in accordance with its moral code and promoting that code within society PROVIDED that such action does not impinge on the rights of others. There shall be no establishment of religion, and no prohibitions on its free excercise - meaning that if I want to put up a billboard that says "God loves you" - the billboard isn't making everyone read it, its not violating anyone elses rights, and as such should not have the government ruling it must be taken down because it "offends" someone. That someone can just not look at it. Just like if I did that - an athiest that wanted to could put up a billboard down the road that says "Dog is love" or some other athiestic mantra (I live in a "very" progressive area - filled with such) and I don't have to look at it either.

Basically - the only thing that would change is that you couldn't use "Its religious" as an excuse to fight something just because you don't agree with it.

Yes - I am sure someone is going to come up with "what about education - you want GOD in that don't you!" - well - I simply have to point at the constitution and respond with "Its not the job of the US Government to be educating the kids of this nation - that falls to the States, and local governments, and the Department of "re"Education has no basis to exist and is an infringement on the rights of the States, and should be abolished. Let the states, locals and parents in the areas where their kids are make the determinations of what they want their kids taught. Its not the Federal government's job to be every kid's nanny." Thus - if parents want their kids taught "creation", or "intelligent design", or "evolution", its their tax dollars - they should have the say. If they want all three - then let em have it. Who made the people in Washington so smart that they know what works in Hoboken, NY or Boise, Idaho, or Los Angeles, when they are not there every day dealing with those areas and their respective challenges. The people on the ground can make those decisions better than some politician in Washington, and that means that they can decide what they want taught. Sure, you may get some hickville in West Virginia (and that is an example - not slamming WVA) that decides the only thing they are going to teach is from the bible. OK - well - if they want to not know how to add, or to teach their kids to do it, thats unfortunate. Or a school in Seattle that wants to teach some new theory of evolution that says that the moon really is made of green cheese and that no one else agrees with - that is their choice. Again unfortunate - but in every case where it "could" go wrong - don't you think that its much more likely that the idiocy will be seen by the public at large and be stopped? After all - opening up decisions to the people that are paying for stuff usually tends to make sure that money is spent wisely.....

antikristuseke

05-18-10, 08:13 PM

Are you seriously suggesting making education a popularity contest ie. teaching that which is popular with parents rather than that which is the most factually accurate and supported by evidence?
Because last I remember you were completely demolished in your own creation vs evolution thread which had almost nothing to do with evolution.

CaptainHaplo

05-18-10, 08:23 PM

Antikrist - As for the Creationism vs Evolution thread - as I stated in the beginning of it - it was a debate - and when you debate something, sometimes you have to take a position you personally do not agree with. Perhaps you are not familiar with debate training - but that is actually a requirement in most places to pass such courses. My skills in it are out of date and rusty, plus I can't find the thread LOL - but it served its purpose. If you think that a thread in which I started an honest discussion that brought forth good scientific arguements was somehow a "demolishing" of my own views, your are not only sadly mistaken, but also prove you know nothing of my own personal views on the matter - or the real purpose of a debate.

Regarding education - no - what I am suggesting is giving local control - AND state control - to the education system. (You did notice I mentioned the state up there, didn't you???) No state in the union would go along with not teaching kids to read, or teaching them only stuff found in religous texts. Sorry - but if you think your going to get an entire state to go along with such idiocy - well - you have no clue how things work then. Sure, a little hickville could have some negative influence - but standards would still be in place at the STATE level - which is how it was supposed to be to start with. State government - being alot more dependant on the local people - is much more responsive when those same locals raise a fuss - while Washington can get 100,000 people marching and its an "inconvienence" but nothing more. They write it off - States don't.... Bringing power closer to the people it affects isn't a negative.....

Sailor Steve

05-18-10, 08:43 PM

In any case, this has nothing to do with my point, which was that, in my experience, atheists are more intolerent than Christians.
So I guess I'll have to ask for some examples. I hear Christians (or people calling themselves Christians) talking fire and brimstone against pretty much anybody who doesn't meet their standards. I see them on TV all the time. I never see any atheists doing that. Not that I'm either.

August

05-18-10, 08:53 PM

Y'know i've had religious proselytizers knock on my door maybe 10 times in the past 30 years. A simple "not interested" has always sent them away without a problem. Apparently they can indeed "just live and let live".

Seriously I just don't see why such a rare and insignificant event should elicit such strong negative emotions.

Aramike

05-18-10, 08:53 PM

CaptainHaplo

05-18-10, 08:54 PM

Steve..... your kidding right?

Go to google... type in:

athiest sues

the results..... About 851,000 results....

Everything from suing to remove "in God we trust" from money to a guy suing his childhood friend who became a priest for daring to tell people that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person! I mean c'mon.....

Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc....

851,000 results..... yea - they couldn't be out to impede the rights of others now could they?

*Edit - you see them on TV.... somehow that makes them intrusive and intolerant? Its easy to change the channel - their "intolerance" has no affect on you - unless you ALLOW it to. If they were out there chasing you down the street then they would be violating your rights and HARRASSING you - just like athiests do to anyone who disagrees with their agenda - but Xtians don't do that.... so who is worse again?

frau kaleun

05-18-10, 09:03 PM

So I guess I'll have to ask for some examples. I hear Christians (or people calling themselves Christians) talking fire and brimstone against pretty much anybody who doesn't meet their standards. I see them on TV all the time. I never see any atheists doing that. Not that I'm either.

I think part of it is that those people - Christians and non-Christians alike - who are of the "live and let live" variety feel no need to be out there "talking fire and brimstone" against people who don't share their beliefs or live by their rules. If you're not dead set on everybody else converting to your beliefs, or else, there's no reason to rant and rail about why you're right and they're wrong and threaten them with whatever punishment supposedly awaits anyone who disagrees.

To a "live and let live" person, what someone else believes or how they live is not a burning issue as long everybody has the same freedoms and rights in respect to those things. They are not mortally offended by diversity or by a society that allows it to flourish instead of treating it as a crime or a sin. They do not see non-conformity as a threat against the validity of their own belief system, and they do not experience the insecurity and anger that comes from watching other people who do not conform to it live happy and productive lives anyway.

So the people who are most vocal and who tend to be most noticeable as the "face" of this or that ideology are, almost by default, the ones who ARE mortally offended by diversity of belief and feel that it should be controlled, mandated against, or stamped out entirely. They are the ones out there making a fuss, getting the press coverage, and stirring up controversy.

VonHesse

05-18-10, 10:10 PM

Steve..... your kidding right?

Go to google... type in:

athiest sues

the results..... About 851,000 results....

908,000 if you google "christian sues"...

There's pushers and prosthletizers on both sides. And a silent majority that just want to be left alone to believe what they feel is right. Either way, raw Google search numbers are a pretty poor benchmark.

SteamWake

05-18-10, 10:14 PM

AngusJS

05-18-10, 10:39 PM

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

It'd be wrong to imply that non believers are any less murderous than anyone else.Then why are atheists extremely underrepresented in the US prison population?

Religion is just a handy excuse, a non religious excuse would serve just as well.It's true that religion can be can be used to attain purely secular goals.

But beliefs have consequences, and a lot of violence happens for solely religious reasons.

August

05-18-10, 11:01 PM

Then why are atheists extremely underrepresented in the US prison population?

If that's true and I doubt it is then i'd bet it's for the same reason that atheists are extremely underrepresented in foxholes.

AngusJS

05-18-10, 11:03 PM

Steve..... your kidding right?

Go to google... type in:

athiest sues

the results..... About 851,000 results....

"Christian sues" gives 1,290,000 results. :D

TheBrauerHour

05-18-10, 11:04 PM

As a social studies teacher in the great state of Texas, I can say that I am concerned about some of the changes being called for. Still though, the article that was posted is not entirely accurate, and seems to be stretching the boundaries of truth to make the story more appealing.

The comment about the slave trade is a prime example. The vocabulary term "Triangular Trade" actually did include slavery. By placing the issue of slavery inside the larger Atlantic triangular trade, we get to analyze the role of mercantilism and get into deeper discussions about slavery...not just the "slavery was bad" stuff. There is still plenty of discussion concerning the great work of abolitionists during the Antebellum era and the evils of slavery.

I took a look today at the latest and greatest proposed changes, and can tell you that the only people crying to high heaven were the teachers who worship all things liberal and refuse to teach a balanced approach to the students. Sure there are some blatantly obvious right wing changes that concern us all, but on the whole we, as professionals, will still supplement our instruction to provide a balanced education for our students.

August

05-18-10, 11:10 PM

"Christian sues" gives 1,290,000 results. :D

And "Athiest sues Christian" yielded 3,020,000 results. :D

Sailor Steve

05-18-10, 11:15 PM

Steve..... your kidding right?
Nice comeback. Google this and get results. Yes, a lot of wienies are suit-happy, I'll give you that.

But you seem to have forgotten the Church and State thing.

VonHesse

05-19-10, 01:09 AM

Nice comeback. Google this and get results. Yes, a lot of wienies are suit-happy, I'll give you that.

Hmm, only 128,000 results... not sure what you're getting at Steve.:hmmm:

:rotfl2:

Aramike

05-19-10, 01:41 AM

Nice comeback. Google this and get results. Yes, a lot of wienies are suit-happy, I'll give you that.

But you seem to have forgotten the Church and State thing.Again, how do you intend upon addressing the very first flaw in your argument?

antikristuseke

05-19-10, 03:46 AM

If that's true and I doubt it is then i'd bet it's for the same reason that atheists are extremely underrepresented in foxholes.

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.

Tribesman

05-19-10, 03:59 AM

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.
You would have thought that the huge atheist horde from the east that Hitler was trying to save the world from would tip the foxhole balance.
That of course being Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, not the other Hitler August mentioned.

Ducimus

05-19-10, 04:41 AM

Also, as an aside, I've tend to find those who are driving with conservative, religious imagery or slogans displayed to be far more polite and considerate than the others. :|\\

I view them as warning labels. Because they either drive like complete idiots, or complete a-holes.

DarkFish

05-19-10, 05:04 AM

Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc.... well, if I were a war hero, I'd turn over in my grave if someone put up a cross on my gravestone or at a memorial my name was on.

Even if there's only one non-christian involved, you should not put up crosses. Doing so would be highly disrespective of their own religion/beliefs.

Skybird

05-19-10, 06:03 AM

CaptainHaplo[/B]
Atheist harrass - via lawsuit - people who they have no connection with - all in the sake of FURTHERING their OWN desire - remove God from everything... Take crosses off the gravestones of fallen military heroes, remove crosses at war memorials, etc etc....

Slow down a bit.

First, displaying religious symbols in public space, and not wanting to need to tolerate others (relgious people) pushing their relgious symbolism into public space, are two different things. The first is an offense, if you want to call it that. The second is just a defense to reach a state of neutrality again. and in a secular society such as the American or almost all european, the public space and the state's bodies indeed must show religious neutrality.

Read again what I said in that example with that guy in the neighbourhood playing his radio so loud that all others cannot escape to listen to it. Demanding that guy to lower the volume until he does not annoy others anymore, does not compare to pumping up the volume in the first. Nor is there any claim to make that the others have to live with it or have to move away. the right and freedom of the radio owner do not weigh heavier than that of the others.

Second, again I repeat that reference of legalised state discrimination, written down in laws, in several states of the nation you live in. you see, the problem atheists like me have with you religious people is that you reserve all rights to drive forward your thing, and when others say they just do not want to need living in a place were they constantly must take note of your action, then you complain. Like I said earlier - you are very much about all freedoms for you, and considerably less freedoms for others not wanting to share your faith.

U.S. State Laws That discriminate against people who don't believe in a god

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1
"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Arkansas
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."
Article 19, sect. 1 of the 1874 constitution

Maryland
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.. nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come." Bill of Rights: Article 36

Massachusetts
"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: herefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."
Declaration of Rights: Article III

North Carolina
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."
Constitution Article 6 Section 8

Pennsylvania
"No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth".
Declaration of Rights Article 1 Section 4

South Carolina
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being..."
Article 4 Section 2

Tennessee
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Bill of Rights: Article 9 Section 4

Texas
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
Article 1 - Bill of Rights: Section 4

Freedom for religion (your religion, that is) is called "freedom" by you. But freedom from religion in your book is anti-religious discrimination, while by law in these states the state himself discriminates massively on the basis of somebody's denial to submit to a faith with a theistic dogma. Here in Germany we do not have that much issues with evangelicals and fundamentalists. But we have something different that absolutely behaves like I just described: Islam.

You know how those two ways of defining your freedom and that of others is called? It is called: double standards. It is called: bigotery (Scheinheiligkeit).

Why do atheists care about religion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

Religion always is and should remain to be a personal, private belief system only. Never should it be allowed to become a political belief system, like in Islam, and like it is wanted by evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists alike. Because in this case, intolerance and worse things not only would become a possibility (and always have become that in history), but a compulsory obligation for the community. And that is the worst tyranny possible.

Many Christian fanatics like the above are so very, very hostile to Islam. It is ironic that they do not see how very very much they are the same like Islam that they complain so much about.

I reject the claims and accusations made against atheists in this thread. Atheists like me do not drive an active atheist agenda of enforcing atheism on others or giving it a high public profile, nor do we missionise in the name of atheism like religious missionise in the name of their faith - as long as the other side does not drive an active theistic agenda of enforcing theism on others or giving theistic faith a high public profile. Atheists like me also do not tel others what they should believe, or that they should believe like we do. Atheism like I describe and understand it is no religion, atheists like me are not in defence of an ideology ("ours"), but we are in defence against an ideology (religious people's). All atheists like we want is that we are being left alone, that public space is protected to remain a religiously neutral space, and that we must not constantly take note of other people's private businesses and must not constantly manouver to evade their actions. I would also complain if I always must witness how my neighbour sleeps with his girlfreind and to realsise what positions they prefer - it simply does not interest me at all, and I would feel offended if they expect me to tolerate them when displaying their nudity or sexual life in the public garden behind our house.

You do not want to bother for us atheists - then do not make us needing to bother for you theists. You do not want a loud neighbourhood disturbing your life, then reduce the volume of your own radio so that we must not pump up the volume of ours so that we must not listen to yours. Keepm your freaking religion were it belongs: in your damn private shere. where oyu insist on making it a public affair, you are not about spirituality anymore, but about powerpolitics and your camp being in control. If you think you must try to anchor your theism in the public space more and more, and discriminate those not wanting to bother for your belief, do not complain if you meet more and more resistence. This resistence has a name. It is called: self-defence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

P.S. maybe one should remind again of a difference between Europe and America, that is that in America, like with so many other things as well, the two camps seem to be far more polarised and extremist, than in most of Europe, at least in Germany. We do not have any active wide-spread atheist organisation or organised pro-atheism movement here that I am aware of, but we also do not have any major evangelical or fundamentalist Christian movement here, and the two churches maybe are annoying, but are not powerful enough anymore to cause major rifts in society. The only religion-related major problems being raised here in Germany, come from Islam.

but that does not change the fact that any major changes to the philosophical and cultural fundament in the US would cause cultural and social and lifestyle effects that would be felt in all other Western nations as well. We cannot afford not to be interested in the religious-atheistic debate in the Us, therefore. With some delay, any major changes in the US most likely would impact on us over here , too.

DarkFish

05-19-10, 06:09 AM

First, displaying religious symbols in public space, and not wanting to need to tolerate others (relgious people) pushing their relgious symbolism into public space, are two different things. The first is an offense, if you want to call it that. The second is just a defense to reach a state of neutrality again. and in a secular society such as the American or almost all european, the public space and the state's bodies indeed must show religious neutrality.

Read again what I saidin that example with that hguy in the neighbourhood playing his radio so loud that all others cannot escape to listen to it. Demanding that guy to lower the volume until he does not annoy others anymore, does not compare to pumping up the volume in the first.:sign_yeah:

Tribesman

05-19-10, 06:27 AM

That quote from Haplo looks familiar.
It wouldn't by any chance be relaterd to those chain e-mails that did the rounds in several versions last year?
Its not surprising he got so many google hits about atheist law suits as lots of people forwarded them and posted them on blogs without realising that surprisingly the claims made in the e-mails were simply fabricated bull.
Though of course the Caps Lock should have been a clue to the validity of the statement as the e-mails seem to be originating from "religious" people who were lying with the aim of errrr..... FURTHERING their OWN desire

August

05-19-10, 07:20 AM

Not over here they are not. That is one of those myths that really irritates me.

No disrespect intended by how many of your countrymen have been in a foxhole since the end of WW2?

antikristuseke

05-19-10, 08:23 AM

No disrespect intended by how many of your countrymen have been in a foxhole since the end of WW2?

To be hones, I don't know. But right now my brothers in arms are active in Afghanistan and Kosovo + other areas that are not public knowledge for obvious reasons. Wether they actually fight in foxholes or not is allso an unknwn to me, I doubt they do, we shouldfield mobile units, recon and explosives disposal only.

Sailor Steve

05-19-10, 09:44 AM

Again, how do you intend upon addressing the very first flaw in your argument?
By saying that I responded to your post in haste. Your experience is your experience, and there is no real answer to that. I apologize.

The truth is that tolerance, like intolerance, knows no boundaries or ideologies, and is probably about equal in every part of a population.

On the other hand, my response does have some validity. Christianity has a long history of intolerance, not unlike that shown by a lot of other religions.

tater

05-19-10, 03:05 PM

Hitler was a Catholic, actually. He was never excommunicated, either—though another high Nazi WAS excommunicated... for marriage to a non-Catholic. What do you have to do to get kicked out of the Catholic Church, lol? Mega-mass murder doesn't make the grade for that, I guess. (after the war, the Pope excommunicated ALL communists with one stroke of the pen, for a reality check)

Stalin was trained in the seminary. He was well aware of how to use belief to his advantage.

While the greatest mass-murders in human history have been not explicitly in the name of religion (Nazis, CCCP, and PRC), they used a religious methodology—replacing god and religious dogma with "head of state" and "political dogma." Belief in communism was quite simply "faith." You can meet commies in universities all over today who believe in such a system contrary to every RL version of it. What else but faith could that be, lol? (insanity is another option, clearly, since it requires trying the same thing and expecting different results).

Also, regardless of the leadership, the PEOPLE were in fact religious in both the Soviet and Nazi societies—and that didn't stop them from willingly doing all the actual murder in either system.

CaptainHaplo

05-19-10, 05:06 PM

@ Sailor Steve - I didn't forget about the "Seperation of Church and State" - in fact I answered your challenge in Post #42....

@ Skybird - try rereading your cut and paste - might want to take Pennsylvania out since all it says is that you cannot disqualify a religous person because they believe - nothing discrimanitory there... Also - as for NC - In Asheville, NC, a local sitting councilman is a vocal athiest - yet even in the "Bible Belt" you don't hear people raising a ruckus - because the "INTOLERANT" Xtians seem to be rather tolerant after all - having been a part of him being elected - and not one lawsuit. How bout that...
There are laws in most states against homosexuality - under "Crimes against Nature" - but when are they enforced? Seems that those with moral beliefs are not out there harrassing and targetting others near as much as people like to claim in threads like this...

As for those who want to say wars and other violence are mostly about religion - sorry - that is demonstratably false.

The rise of the Macedonian (Greek) empire.
The rise of the Roman empire.
The Punic Wars.
The fall of the Roman empire.
The Hundred Years War.
The Spanish Civil War
The US Civil War
The Great War (WW1)

Etc Etc - and those are off the top of my head. War is predominantly about power (who has it) and control (usually of resources). The only reason so many wars have a religious conentation is simply because organized religion has been one means of control over mankind - and so any struggle for power and control will usually have a religious facet - as a way to claim authority. Don't confuse the root cause with what the foundational reasons are hiding behind. Even the Crusades (Most - the kids crusade being an exception) were about power and control. Winning a Crusade meant power (through prestige) at home as well as control over commerce to and from a focal point in the Middle East - all hiding behind a religious facade.

Snestorm

05-19-10, 05:14 PM

Back to the original subject, it would seem that USA's educational problems began when both unbiased History and Geography, were replaced by History and Physical "Education".

Skybird

05-19-10, 05:16 PM

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

This seems to imply that a person who denied the existence of all Gods or who denied the existence of heaven (or equivalent) or who denied the existence of hell (or equivalent) had no protection from being held ineligible to hold office or be a member of the PA civil service because of their religious beliefs.

3.htm

CaptainHaplo

05-19-10, 05:26 PM

Now - back to the original post topic....

How many posting about how horrible this all is - have actually READ what changes are being made?

In case you want to - you can:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643)

If you read - you will see additions like the word "VALID" when citing a source - so no talking to your buddy in the second grade and taking his word for it... Yep thats horrible....

The addition of historical figures - guys like George Washington and "GASP!" Martin Luther King - uhm wait - I thought they were taking him out - nope - he actually is being ADDED to the curriculum - how bout those white supremecist right leaning bigots???

Another man talked about as a great inventor that gets added - George Washington Carver - hmmm - how was HE not in there before? And how dare those republicans try to include him - they must be racist for trying to hold him up as an example of what a man - regardless of color - can do if he wants. Bastids!!!!!

Now later you find what really bugs the liberals - teaching kids their responsibilities in maintaining "a constitutional republic"! Oh my GOD they are going to teach kids FACTS - can't have that can they?

But the liberal media wants to run with it - just like they want to run with an arizona law that enforces what the feds have - as racist. And some people swallow it - hook, line and sinker. Because they don't go read it themselves.

CaptainHaplo

05-19-10, 05:28 PM

DarkFish

05-19-10, 05:44 PM

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."Skybird - no it does not - it means what it says - just because a man says he believes in god doesn't mean you can use that as a reason to keep him out of public office. Your trying to say that because it says one thing - the opposite of that one thing must be true - thats not gonna work. It may be a translation thing - but I doubt any native english speaker with no dog in the fight would agree with your interpretation.well as far as my knowledge of English goes, it says that you cannot be disqualified [...] on account of your religious sentiments, as long as you are a person who "acknowledges the being of a god".
I don't acknowledge the being of a god, so it says I can, on account of my religious sentiments, be disqualified [...].

The only matter is how you can be religious, while still not acknowledging the being of a god. Well, trust me, you can. I'm a religious Pagan, but I don't actually believe in the old Germanic Gods.

Skybird

05-19-10, 05:50 PM

Sorry, but I messed up that post. Actually it should have been a quote box from A to Z, which I forgot to add after the pasting and copying. I see the link to the website also got crippled, only the last digits got copied. Happens when one types/posts too fast - my fault.

What it means is that that text is completely taken from a US website, not from me. None of the words is by me, so it hardly is a translation thing, nor am I the only one understanding things the way it is expressed there. And the author, for obvious reasons, was/is perfectly capable in English language. It's his native language, I strongly assume.

Snestorm

05-19-10, 05:51 PM

It does say that you can not be disqualified because you believe in a god(s).

It does NOT say you can be disqualified because you do not believe in a god(s).

DarkFish

05-19-10, 05:58 PM

It does say that you can not be disqualified because you believe in a god(s).

It does NOT say you can be disqualified because you do not believe in a god(s).but it also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in a god.

This in itself is discrimination already IMO.

Aramike

05-19-10, 06:18 PM

By saying that I responded to your post in haste. Your experience is your experience, and there is no real answer to that. I apologize.

The truth is that tolerance, like intolerance, knows no boundaries or ideologies, and is probably about equal in every part of a population.

On the other hand, my response does have some validity. Christianity has a long history of intolerance, not unlike that shown by a lot of other religions.Fair enough. However, that being said, a history of things don't necessarily equate to the current state of things. And my point is about the latter.

tater

05-19-10, 06:18 PM

It does say that you can not be disqualified because you believe in a god(s).

It does NOT say you can be disqualified because you do not believe in a god(s).

No, it leaves the second question open. Under the statement you posted, it would be entirely legal to pass a law banning atheists from holding office, for example.

The other clause is not important, it in effect says:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Someone who does NOT acknowledge god, OTOH is not explicitly protected.

Really odd way to word things.

tater

05-19-10, 06:25 PM

Back to the original subject, it would seem that USA's educational problems began when both unbiased History and Geography, were replaced by History and Physical "Education".

There is no unbiased history.

No such thing.

tater

05-19-10, 06:45 PM

On the one hand, the largest murderers in human history, the communists, were not doing so for religion (though they treated the state and "dear leader" as a godlike figure). On the other hand, if you go farther back in human history, the percentage of people that died to human violence was FAR higher than it was even in nazi germany or the soviet union. Far higher.

Studies of primitive tribal peoples show that more than 25% die to homicide. Those people ARE religious (and one religion is just as likely as the next in terms of veracity—if you disagree, I'll happily use whatever algorithm you use to throw out tribal religion on yours ;) ). The decrease in human violence has nothing to do with improvements in religious invention, either. New Testament era people I'm sure died at human hands at a higher rate than the 4:100,000 we might see today.

Platapus

05-19-10, 06:46 PM

There is no unbiased history.

No such thing.

Truer words have seldom been posted in this forum.

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. - Napoleon Bonaparte

AngusJS

05-19-10, 06:47 PM

Skybird - no it does not - it means what it says - just because a man says he believes in god doesn't mean you can use that as a reason to keep him out of public office. Your trying to say that because it says one thing - the opposite of that one thing must be true - thats not gonna work. It may be a translation thing - but I doubt any native english speaker with no dog in the fight would agree with your interpretation.

If you consider the context of when that text was written, that interpretation makes no sense. The vast majority of people in 1790s Pennsylvania would have believed in god. Why would a man believing in god (and thus adhering to the majority opinion) be discriminated against?

The text makes more sense if you interpret it as saying a person cannot be discriminated against for his beliefs AS LONG AS he believes in god and an afterlife.

Snestorm

05-19-10, 06:56 PM

but it also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in a god.

This in itself is discrimination already IMO.

It also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in Santa Claus.

Law is based on what it says. Not what it does not say.
Your reading things into it that aren't there.

Snestorm

05-19-10, 06:59 PM

There is no unbiased history.

No such thing.

That thought entered my head after posting.
"A day late, and a dollar short."

You are correct, and I stand corrected.

tater

05-19-10, 07:30 PM

It also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in Santa Claus.

Law is based on what it says. Not what it does not say.
Your reading things into it that aren't there.

You are correct, but it leaves open the possibility of passing a law that might disqualify someone for being an atheist.

It seems not to pass the establishment muster, either, since it says "a God." Note capital god, BTW. When you speak of the Greeks, you'd write "god" or "gods." Seems to be establishing a state religion that encompasses all 3 "great" (lol) monotheisms.

Sailor Steve

05-19-10, 08:02 PM

@ Sailor Steve - I didn't forget about the "Seperation of Church and State" - in fact I answered your challenge in Post #42....
You're right, I missed that somehow. On the other hand, I find the signing reference to be a bit silly. Yes, they used the term. Did they have any other choice? As you said, it was the language of the day. And the journals kept at the time show that Benjamin Franklin tried to have each day's session open with a prayer, and that the motion was roundly voted down. They went out of their way to keep the document secular, and as I've already pointed out one of the main proponents of the 'Separation' phrase was James Madison himself. In fact Madison strenuously opposed the use of public money to hire chaplains for both Congress and the military. I can't argue that he was likely wrong on the military front, but his idea for Congress was that if they wanted to pray they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets.

As for your statement of what you want, do you really believe people are asked to check their morals at the door? What of any of the other desires you mention are different than anything anyone else has claimed for the first amendment. In spite of the 'No religious test' clause, try running for president while denying a belief in God and see how far you get.

Sailor Steve

05-19-10, 08:17 PM

Separate thought. On the topic of State laws, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom specifically to counter existing laws in that state; laws that mandated a 30-day jail sentence for denying the Trinity and death for 'Blaspheming against the Church'. Those laws were long out of use, but Jefferson believed it would only take one good speaker to convince the people to revive them.

Skybird - no it does not - it means what it says - just because a man says he believes in god doesn't mean you can use that as a reason to keep him out of public office. Your trying to say that because it says one thing - the opposite of that one thing must be true - thats not gonna work. It may be a translation thing - but I doubt any native english speaker with no dog in the fight would agree with your interpretation.
Now it's my turn to say "You've got to be kidding."

It means what it says alright, but what you just said has nothing to do with what it actually says.

Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights: Article 1, Section 4:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."
What it says is a statement of religious tolerance. It's refering to keeping a man out of office, not because he believes in God, but because his theology differs from yours. It does specifically list acknowledging the existence of God and the afterlife as a requirement, intimating that a person who denies those can be denied office.

Your interpretation is either self-deception or intentional prevarication.

Oh, and believe it or not, I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I do speak English.

CaptainHaplo

05-19-10, 08:50 PM

Steve - the quoted law listed by Skybird does NOT list any "requirement" that a man must acknowledge a deity of any sort. There may be more to the law that does - but NOTHING in what was quoted does so. I can only speak on what it does say.

If it said "No person who does not acknowledge a God may be disqualified from holding office" - then I would agree. But it doesn't - at least not in what has been brought forth.

To say the law "infers" or "intimates" something is not what law does - as SNES says - law doesn't work like that. It does NOT say you are disqualifed if you do not acknowledge a god. If it did, this wouldn't be in question.

Lets use your logic for a second. In Galveston, Texas, there is a wonderful law on the books that says "Cars may not be driven through playgrounds.". By inference, one could say that no motorized vehicle could be driven through any place where children at play may be. It would then be illegal to have a go cart track in galveston - because it would be a motorized vehicle going where kids play. There is a reason it doesnt say this. Law says what it says - and nothing more.

The problem with the judicial branch is that you have exactly what your describing - judges who "legislate" from the bench by INFERRING that if a law says one thing - it must mean this other thing to. That isn't what the law does.

Sailor Steve

05-19-10, 08:57 PM

Your contention was that it meant that a person could not be disqualified for saying there was a God, and no state has ever passed a law anything like that. It says that a man cannot be disqualified regardless of religious beliefs as long as he acknowledges the existence of God, and no analogy you can present changes that.

Just in case I got my first sentence wrong, what exactly do you believe it means?

Snestorm

05-19-10, 09:01 PM

It seems not to pass the establishment muster, either, since it says "a God." Note capital god, BTW. When you speak of the Greeks, you'd write "god" or "gods." Seems to be establishing a state religion that encompasses all 3 "great" (lol) monotheisms.

Very interesting point. Good find.

DarkFish

05-20-10, 02:11 AM

It also does NOT say you can NOT be disqualified because you do not believe in Santa Claus.

Law is based on what it says. Not what it does not say.
Your reading things into it that aren't there.But it also doesn't say anything about people who do believe in Santa.
And that's where the difference is, religious god acknowledging people are granted a right that atheists are not.

While Santa-believers are not granted more rights than non-Santa-believers.

Ducimus

05-20-10, 04:41 PM

Since i can't find a better thread to post this link in:

http://www.lacanadaonline.com/articles/2010/05/19/religion/lvs-arvizu051310.txt

Note: I do not classify myself as an athiest, only one who dislikes ramrodding, intolerance and hipocracy of the devout.

On another note, i recall fondly some of the devout taggin the 91 freeway with the numbers for a chrisitan radio station all the freaking time near overpasses. The funny thing was i knew exactly what i was looking at before i changed the radio station to verify my hunch.

They can't just live and let live, it's pathetic. :nope:

Sailor Steve

05-20-10, 06:01 PM

Well, as with so-called 'Christians' shooting abortion doctors, I think every group is plagued with some who are willing to anything in the name of their faith, no matter what it is, and that includes anti-theism.

I'm told that there is an old Hindu saying: No god should ever be judged by the sort of people who claim to worship him.

August

05-20-10, 06:20 PM

They can't just live and let live, it's pathetic. :nope:

Oh c'mon, stop being such a drama queen Duc. How exactly are they not letting you "live"?

Look, don't get me wrong. Regardless of the message, Graffiti is a crime and the "artist" deserves to be punished for it, but "live and let live" does not mean "be invisible to you".

They're people, and fellow Americans, now if they start burning crosses on your front yard or splashing you with goat blood or simply not leave your property when you tell them to, that'd be one thing but I just don't see how an occasional religious solicitation justifies such a strong emotional response.

Ducimus

05-20-10, 06:22 PM

When painting a wall, its very hard to not use a wide brush, or sponge roller, when the majority of the paint buckets you've been given are but a single color. Yes there is some trim work on this wall that is a different color and i'll want to use a 2" brush to finish it properly, but the majority of the wall is still the one color.

CaptainHaplo

05-20-10, 06:23 PM

It says that a man cannot be disqualified regardless of religious beliefs as long as he acknowledges the existence of God.

Now here is where we differ - where do you see the law say "as long as? It doesn't. It says IF a man chooses to acknowledge God - you can't use it to disqualify him. If the law meant that you HAD to acknowledge God, then it would say so. It would state clearly - like the one for NC does - that a man MUST acknowledge it or be disqualified.

Also - note that this law quoted is from the Declaration of Rights - not the declaration or non-rights. Enumerated rights are things/actions PROTECTED by law.

What does it mean? It means that if I were a resident and ran for office - you couldn't legally stop me from taking a civil office should I win - all because I acknowledge God. All the law does is protect the rights of those who would otherwise be targetted because they acknowledge God.

Its also quite ironic that it is claimed to be "discriminatory" since the same Declaration of Rights - Section 3 states the following:
Section 3. Religious Freedom
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

The very preceding act makes it clear that any man can worship as "according to the dictates of their own consciences" - meaning if your inclination is to say the hell with God, church and everything else "religious" or spiritual - you have full right to do it. Boy - how discriminitory that is huh..:doh: The whole "no preference" also makes it clear that you couldnt use tne next PROTECTION as some weird twist to then "prefer" under law religion.....

Ya'll can see in however you want - but there is no way that law could be used to target a non-believe - because it doesn't even mention them!

I also find it quite odd that of all the discussion - no one has anything to say about the actual changes to the texas curriculum that I linked to and posted examples of.

Sailor Steve

05-20-10, 07:07 PM

Now here is where we differ - where do you see the law say "as long as? It doesn't. It says IF a man chooses to acknowledge God - you can't use it to disqualify him. If the law meant that you HAD to acknowledge God, then it would say so. It would state clearly - like the one for NC does - that a man MUST acknowledge it or be disqualified.
Why would a Christian majority in a Christian state pass a law protecting people from being castigated for saying they believed in god. State laws have always, without exception, only withheld rights from people who either believed the wrong way or not at all. Modern evangelicals like to point out their belief that this has always been a Christian country. So Pennsylvania passed a law protecting good God-fearing men from those evil atheists? Virtually every Freedom-Of-Religion law writted was made to protect the minority from the majority, the majority being the Christians. Or was there some secret Atheist Coalition running the country back then that nobody told us about?

Your interpretation is silly.

Snestorm

05-20-10, 10:32 PM

I also find it quite odd that of all the discussion - no one has anything to say about the actual changes to the texas curriculum that I linked to and posted examples of.

I tryed that, but they shifted it right bavk to religion.
Personaly, I thought the original topic to be far more interesting but . . . .

gimpy117

05-20-10, 11:35 PM

So its alright to let god into our governmental system while we chastise the muslims for running religious states?

hold on while turn of the hypocrisy alarm..its getting kinda loud

Sailor Steve

05-21-10, 12:01 AM

I tryed that, but they shifted it right bavk to religion.
Personaly, I thought the original topic to be far more interesting but . . . .
From the original topic:
In Texas we have certain statutory obligations to promote patriotism and to promote the free enterprise system. There seems to have been a move away from a patriotic ideology. There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections.
I realize that it is important to talk about the 'corrections' and the questionability of doing this, but religion was definitely within the scope of the discussion, especially the question of a 'Christian America'.

But indeed, let's talk about all those things. There's plenty of room.

CaptainHaplo

05-21-10, 06:40 AM

And while later documents do step away from references to God - the fact is that the 2 documents that led the way BOTH reference a god in some way. This is an undeniable fact. Check the "Declaration of Arms" in 1775 and the "Declaration of Independance" in 1776. The first was the final attempt to reconcile with the Crown, and states at the beginning(emphasis added):

If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end.

The Declaration of Independance, which is the document that indeed founded this country, also includes the same type references (emphasis added):

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Now - had they tried to claim that the nation was founded under "the Xtian" God, it would be incorrect. However, they didn't say that - they said "under God" - and that - contrary to the athiests and anti-religious - is a true statement. To say otherwise is exactly what the left is accusing the right of trying to do - rewrite history. To keep "God" out of schools, one must intentionally refuse to teach the two documents listed above - which are cornerstones of this nations history and move to independance. This doesn't mean they need a religious class, but the fact is that the writers and signers held a belief in a power above themselves sufficient for them to note it in the documents. Thus - this nation was formed "under God", since they invoke god specifically by putting the action "to the Supreme Judge".

Sorry it "offends" your sensibilities, sorry some of you don't like it - but history is offensive in many ways - get over it. Or are you all about teaching "truth" only when its what you like?

Tribesman

05-21-10, 07:33 AM

The first was the final attempt to reconcile with the Crown, and states at the beginning
Would that be because the Crown was also the head of the established State religion? Which of course comes back to the thing about establishment.
Since the amendment says there can be no establishment then what does establishment mean, the easiest and most definitive answer would be from when political bodies take away establishments. Like the disestablishment of religions from their role in politics....which is the unquestionable seperation of church and State.

tater

05-21-10, 09:03 AM

The country was not founded "under god."

Where is God mentioned in the Constitution?

The Declaration doesn't matter, it has no force of law—and only mentions the "Creator"—a first cause, but deist reference, not a god who interferes or cares about the affairs of men.

It was only Christian in that the bulk of the population were Christians, there is nothing in law—which is a good thing.

Christians wanting more mixture of religion and State should be very careful. They should be aware that Muslims will use this, then instead of hearing about church at home, and nothing like that at school, they'll get to hear muslim crap at school, too. Separation of church and state is a massive plus to religious people, it's not aimed at atheists.

Sailor Steve

05-21-10, 11:44 AM

Now - had they tried to claim that the nation was founded under "the Xtian" God, it would be incorrect. However, they didn't say that - they said "under God" - and that - contrary to the athiests and anti-religious - is a true statement.

To say otherwise is exactly what the left is accusing the right of trying to do - rewrite history. To keep "God" out of schools, one must intentionally refuse to teach the two documents listed above - which are cornerstones of this nations history and move to independance. This doesn't mean they need a religious class, but the fact is that the writers and signers held a belief in a power above themselves sufficient for them to note it in the documents. Thus - this nation was formed "under God", since they invoke god specifically by putting the action "to the Supreme Judge".

Sorry it "offends" your sensibilities, sorry some of you don't like it - but history is offensive in many ways - get over it. Or are you all about teaching "truth" only when its what you like?
You say they don't invoke the "Xtian God", but Cynthia Dunbar herself is an Evangelical Christian (nothing wrong with that certainly) who, in her own book uses the phrase "emphatically Christian Government."

Dunbar was elected to the state education board on the back of a campaign in which she argued for the teaching of creationism – euphemistically known as intelligent design – in science classes.

Overall the changes they want to make are indeed distinctly Christian in nature.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

As with 'Intelligent Design', you can obfuscate all you want, but the basic premise is indeed that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation, and the underlying intent is to have Christian theology taught in public schools as history and science.

AngusJS

05-21-10, 12:20 PM

To keep "God" out of schools, one must intentionally refuse to teach the two documents listed above - which are cornerstones of this nations history and move to independance.Baloney. Just because an historical document includes "god" or religious language does not mean it can't be taught.

Thus - this nation was formed "under God", since they invoke god specifically by putting the action "to the Supreme Judge".Funny how when they actually got around to forming the nation in the Constitution, the Founders made a point of NOT doing so "under god." They could have easily done so, but they didn't.

When the establishment clause is followed, everyone wins. I don't know why the fundies want to do away with a good thing.

August

05-21-10, 01:54 PM

I don't know why the fundies want to do away with a good thing.

I think it's because they're feeling threatened. Every time someone sues to ban to Pledge of Allegiance or remove a Christmas nativity scene it's seen as a threat. A feeling some church leaders like to promote because nothing draws a group together like an external menace.

Ducimus

05-21-10, 02:07 PM

And in the process their making themselves intolerant, hypocritical, and their image changed to a group of people who would seek to force and manipulate their religious beliefs onto others. Or in otherwords, they have become a group who would seek to oppress others with their dogmatic garbage. I'm decidedly against them for that reason alone.

I do not doubt for one second that fundamentalists of "Christian America" would LOVE to have a theocracy like this in our country if they could:

http://s2.buzzfeed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/6/15/14/how-iran-works-3160-1245089753-17.jpg

Their incessant need to smear/force jesus, crosses, religion, dogma into peoples faces in just about EVERYTHING is a clear indicator i think.

frau kaleun

05-21-10, 02:17 PM

When the establishment clause is followed, everyone wins. I don't know why the fundies want to do away with a good thing.

You answered your own question: because when it's followed, everyone wins. To fundies, that is not a good thing, because as far as they're concerned they are right and everyone else is wrong and therefore nobody should be allowed to win except for them.

It's not just that they want to put "God" back in the schools and "religion" back into public life. They want to make their versions of "God" and "religion" the only ones that are accepted, endorsed, taught, and allowed.

This is what always amazes me about fundies. With regard to schooling, they are SO TERRIFIED that their pwecious chilluns might be exposed to anything that might in any way contradict fundamentalist teaching because ZOMG they will be led astray!! And yet they are at the same time absolutely adamant that their teaching is clearly and obviously the only right and true perspective and anyone who doesn't agree is morally or mentally deficient.

Don't tell me how "right" and valid your beliefs are, and then act like the only way to keep people from questioning them is to prevent exposure to any alternatives whatsoever. But that's exactly what they do.

Task Force

05-21-10, 02:21 PM

Huh, I got more reasons to not want to go to private school than that...

Try getting dragged down to the principal by the ear/hair for being "rebelious" (or what ever they call the head Dickhead) and sit there for a hour.

August

05-21-10, 03:03 PM

UnderseaLcpl

05-21-10, 03:22 PM

This thread is 8 pages long as I type this and it seems it will only get longer, with no consensus or workable solution in sight. :hmmm:For those of you who haven't guessed it already, yes this is yet another Libertarian critique of public schools.

Rather than immediately asking oneself "what is the solution?" it might be wise to consider asking oneself "why is this a problem?" Clearly, there is a disagreement as to what level of religious involvement, if any, should be allowed in schools.

Q:So why is that a problem?
A: Because we all (save the very gifted and the very wealthy) have to attend the same kinds of schools; Public schools.

As Frau points out, the "fundies" have an agenda, but so do many other people and groups. This is not the first time that the issue of what should be taught or tolerated at public schools has come up, and the issue is not always a religious one. Curriculae, uniforms, discipline, teachers, books, funding, attendance issues.... all of these things and more have been the subject of debate and the resulting compromise that satisfies nobody at one time or another.

So.... if everyone has a different agenda and we must all use the same schools, which element of the equation seems the likely culprit for the disharmony? If you guessed "same schools" you're right. If you guessed "agenda" you're a control freak with and you need to re-examine your perspectives. You're a "fundie" of some type or another, and odds are there is a lobby group in Washington arguing for you, which is exactly how we wound up with the joke we call "public education" today.

My solution is to simply let all the "fundie" groups compete. Let their public schools compete. Privatize them. Put in a voucher system. Something!
Is group X a bunch of idiots? Put your money where your mouth is, then! Prove it through actions, not hypotheses!

Yes, this will result in inequality, but the current system does that already..... just visit a few schools in poor communities. Yes, this will result in non-uniform education, but so what? Universities and colleges train people in whatever they (or their parents) choose in whatever environment they choose and there seems to be no public outcry about that. Perhaps the college-boys learn the concept of "specialization" or "division of labor"?

That system may sound bad to many people, but it is certainly better than equal suckage for all, except for the priviledged, and greater suckage for some, yes?

This whole debate should be a complete non-issue. It is irresolvible and silly on a level usually reserved for Federal legislatures and fashion pundits. Fix the problems, not the solutions.

Task Force

05-21-10, 03:30 PM

Well, were you being rebellious?

Not really, just being a normal kid (yea, I was 5)... not as bad as some others.

tater

05-21-10, 05:17 PM

Yeah, the libertarian take (intentionally lower case, BTW ;) ) is right I think.

Any time ANYTHING is paid for by the government it is ALWAYS political. Science, schools, whatever. This is, and will always be true. If your money is tax money, then political representatives decides who gets it and how much.

The science, for example, is annoying. The fundie take is 100% wrong. Not debatable, sorry, it's fantasy. But since the schools are political by definition, they might well get creationism nonsense in there at some point—luckily this always gets bitch-slapped in court.

Going all private has some positives, but then we'll see a balkanization I fear. Muslims in madrassas, christians being trained to be equally stupid in their schools, etc. On the plus side, those of us using good private school will save tax money, and still train our kids to be the ruling class (in every serious discipline) over fundie morons.

CaptainHaplo

05-21-10, 05:22 PM

@ Undersea - exactly...

@ tater - I answered that challenge about God in the constitution already in this thread. Also - your saying that the Declaration of Independance has no legal force? Excuse me - it is THE document that founded this country - NOT the Constitution. The Constitution defines HOW the nation that was founded in the Declaration of Independance will operate. Nice try to twist it - but withou the DoI - the Constitution cannot exist - because the United States of America cannot exist.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

So even the signatories note in the document that the US of A was and had been in existence for 12 years - so the Constitution is not the founding document. SHEESH!

@ Sailor Steve - Ms. Dunbar can claim to be whatever faith she wants, and want whatever she wants to be taught. I made the point that the statement that was quoted say "under God" - which is accurate. I also stated had they said "under the Xtian God" they would be wrong. I don't see us as disagreeing on what they may or may not have meant - but what was stated - was accurate.

Also - Steve, I have great respect for you - but I posted the links directly to the material in question for debate - and you reply with a link from a week old newspaper source in the UK? I would think the actual material is better source data for discussion than what some newspaper across the pond thinks when its doubtful they have looked at it in depth. If we are going to debate whether changes are good or bad, religious or not, etc - then lets use the actual stuff being changed - instead of some overseas news article.....

I have not at all said that there is no "seperation of church and state" - what I have done is state that people take the term freedom of religion and have tried for decades to make it freedom from religion - freedom from having to allow others to practice it as they see fit, freedom from having others promote it as they wish provided it does not violate another persons rights, etc. I have not said that religion needs to be part of government - and in the cases of MOST of the laws Skybird posted - I think they are unconstitutional and should be abolished. No man can be constrained to worship outside the dictates of his conscience - I agree - but I also agree that no man should be constrained to NOT worship in ways he sees fit provided that no rights of another are trampled. And sorry - an elected representitive who wants to put the ten commandments in his office - or an elected judge wants them in his courtroom - well - vote em out if you don't like em - but if you stop them - your stopping them from worshipping as they see fit - and that violates the freedom of religion clause.

Sailor Steve

05-21-10, 07:12 PM

@ @ Sailor Steve - Ms. Dunbar can claim to be whatever faith she wants, and want whatever she wants to be taught. I made the point that the statement that was quoted say "under God" - which is accurate. I also stated had they said "under the Xtian God" they would be wrong. I don't see us as disagreeing on what they may or may not have meant - but what was stated - was accurate.
You said that these people said "under God", and not under the Christian God. Their agenda is very specifically Christian, and there's no denying that. I think a direct quote from the woman's book is sufficient direct evidence for that.

I have not at all said that there is no "seperation of church and state"
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1395862&postcount=14

- what I have done is state that people take the term freedom of religion and have tried for decades to make it freedom from religion - freedom from having to allow others to practice it as they see fit, freedom from having others promote it as they wish provided it does not violate another persons rights, etc.
But that phrase - "Not freedom from religion" - has been used by evangelicals to say that the government should be based in religion. Most people I've listened to don't believe that anyone should be denied their freedoms. The believe the Christians want to enforce their beliefs on everyone. The fear is on both sides.

No man can be constrained to worship outside the dictates of his conscience - I agree - but I also agree that no man should be constrained to NOT worship in ways he sees fit provided that no rights of another are trampled.
Then we are in complete agreement on that.

And sorry - an elected representitive who wants to put the ten commandments in his office - or an elected judge wants them in his courtroom - well - vote em out if you don't like em - but if you stop them - your stopping them from worshipping as they see fit - and that violates the freedom of religion clause.
Well, putting your beliefs in your office is your business. Putting up in a taxpayer funded courtroom is a little different. Do you want to go into a courtroom with Buddhas on pedestals everywhere?

And the protests aren't over private usage, they are over public displays on the lawns of public buildings.

CaptainHaplo

05-21-10, 07:46 PM

Sailor Steve

05-21-10, 09:13 PM

Steve - the link is in regards to the constitution. The fact is that a seperation of church and state does in fact exist - and I have not said that it is not a proper thing. Specifically - it should exist to keep government from mandating ANY religion. I have said as much repeatedly - there is a difference to it "not being in the constitution" and it "not being"....

The seperation of church and state is founded on a letter to the Danbury Baptists - a PRIVATE letter - that was used to justify a legal ruling.
And I've shown that it was used repeatedly by the man who wrote the first amendment. He obvoiously believed that was what it meant.

Now you can lump anything in with "those evangelicals" or "those gays" or "those (insert your target here)" all you want - but your painting a with a broad brush that is intentionally generalizing.
You're afraid of people trying to use that to remove all traces of religion from American life. I'm with you on that. On the other hand every time I've heard someone using the "no separation" phrase they've been pushing an agenda. You seem to be the only one who means it differently. Why should I believe you, other than that I'm willing to give anyone the benifit of the doubt?

I will say it again - has she said "under the Christian god" then I would be right there with you saying she was wrong.
But she did say it. The fact that she didn't say it there is what has people up in arms. She's lying.

But there is a difference. The terms used - as has been pointed out - were very deist - which in fact most of the "Founding Fathers" were.
I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not intentionally generalizing, I'm speaking of the most outspoken leaders - the ones who make the most noise and seem to speak for the majority, even if they don't. They are also the ones whom people listen to.

As for the issue of Buddhas in the courtroom - I personally wouldn't care. If I did have an issue with it - there are options. First - make sure the judge isn't re-elected - and also appeal IF and only IF the law was not followed. What statue is in the room matters not one bit to the legal ruling - and if it does - then the ruling isn't going to stand. Simple enough.
Also - an elected official has an office - but taxpayer money pays for it, taxpayer business is done in it - and taxpayers often see officials in their office. So what is the difference between that and a courtroom? Both are accessible to, serve and are paid for by the taxpayer. Careful with your answer though - because if you say ok remove every religious icon in government buildings - then your also saying a religious person could not bring a token of faith to their work - and that infringes on their right to worship as they see fit.
And that is a tough question. No, people should never be prohibited from demonstrating their faith in the open, as long as it doesn't intrude on anybody's rights. That can be a thorny question itself. My only answer is to refer to Jefferson.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes On The State Of Virginia

You see - its a 2 edged sword..... Lets say you did have a judge that wanted to have a statue of Buddha on his wall. Ok - then his clerk wants to bring in a small Cross mounted on a stand. Maybe the court recorder wants to have something else on her little desk. Where do you stop - or do you? Does it matter what each of them does as long as they do the work of the people as they are duty bound to by law and terms of employment?
I believe the courtroom itself, as a public place paid for by the taxpayers, should be free of all religious symbols. Though the Judge's office is also provided by the taxpayers, that is not a public place, but a private office. If a Church wants to have a cross, that is their business and nobody elses. If someone wants to put a cross or anything else over a public school, that is a violation of the concept.

People want to talk about how Xtians want to take over and remake government - and a few loonies do. And I will stand with you to stop them when I see the idiocy- but the lunacy has to stop when it comes to the rabid FEAR of any religion having any impact on governance... If it were not for religion - this country would not exist - because most of the settling of this country was an attempt to find religious freedom. Meaning you practice your thing - I'll practice mine, and we live and let live. But instead you have people who want to make sure no one can practice anything on "public" grounds. Well public means yours and mine and the other guys too - and last I checked you weren't to tell me what to do any more than I am to tell you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander....
I agree about standing against loonies, no matter what fringe they're from. But as for finding religious freedom, most of the colonies were started as business enterprises, mostly planting. Massachussetts was founded by a group seeking religious freedom, which to them meant escape from the established Church of England and finding a place where they could establish their own Presbyterian Church. And they drove out anyone who preached religious freedom. This included Roger Williams, who was the only contemporary religious leader who did practice true tolerance, and he ended up founding Rhode Island. Interesting that he called his capital 'Providence', a decidedly non-specific term. The history of Christianity in early America is not one of religious tolerance. It took Enlightenment types like Jefferson to go against the grain and push laws guaranteeing freedom. And the religious leaders of his own day branded him an Atheist.

As for practicing in a public place, I used to attend a church that met in a local park. I thought it was a great setting, and I see not problem with anybody meeting anywhere public. I do, however, have a problem with the government, whether federal, state or local, using taxpayer money to put up religious symbolism.

AngusJS

05-22-10, 01:10 AM

@ tater - I answered that challenge about God in the constitution already in this thread. Also - your saying that the Declaration of Independance has no legal force?The DoI has no legal force. It was written before our system of law was even founded in the Constitution.

Excuse me - it is THE document that founded this country - NOT the Constitution. No it isn't. The Constitution defines HOW the nation that was founded in the Declaration of Independance will operate. Nice try to twist it - but withou the DoI - the Constitution cannot exist - because the United States of America cannot exist.You've been doing the twist for this entire thread. The DoI attempts to justify the break with Great Britain by saying we have rights extending from the creator. It continues with a long whine about George III, and ends by stating that the colonies are now a separate country. Wow, what a founding.

What will this new country be like? Will it be a democracy, a republic, or a monarchy? How about a theocracy?

Will there be nobility? Will there be slavery? Will there be guaranteed freedoms? What will they be? What will life be like in this new country?

It's the Constitution that decided these questions. It didn't just organize government; it provided the foundation for the lives of the country's citizens.

The Declaration of Independence did none of that. That's why we aren't founded on the DoI, we're founded on the Constitution. If the drafters of the Constitution had wanted to found our country in belief, they could have easily done so. But they didn't.

Platapus

05-22-10, 08:11 AM

The DoI attempts to justify the break with Great Britain by saying we have rights extending from the creator. It continues with a long whine about George III, and ends by stating that the colonies are now a separate country. Wow, what a founding.

I really liked your post and I thank you for the good viewpoint. People also need to understand the reason for the Declaration of Independence.

It was to justify to the people in the colonies the rational for what was not a very popular rebellion. The audience was the people in the American colonies not the King of England.

We (the rebellion) did not even send a copy of this declaration to England. It was sent to England by some British officers.

The document is not, as often remembered, the big FU to the King, but was a document of persuasion to inform and influence public (in the colonies) opinion on what was an illegal rebellion.

So the Declaration of Independence can be used as a historical documentation of intent, but you are most correct when you say that it can not be used as a citation for government structure.

Some good books on the subject are

American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (1997) by Pauline Maier

I can also recommend the appropriate chapters of "A people's history of the United States" (2003) by the late Dr. Howard Zinn

"Origins of the American Revolution" (1947) By John C. Miller

And my pride and joy I have a first edition of

"Notes on Historical Evidence in reference to adverse theories of the origin and nature of the Government of the United States" published in 1871 by John B Dillon. If you can find this book in a library, take the time to read it. It is fascinating!

The period between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is one of my favorite periods of history.

CaptainHaplo

05-22-10, 09:52 AM

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Geez - first you guys say that the DoI is not the founding document of our country - and now you admit it is - but that it isn't the basis of our government.

Ok - I can agree with that - but I never argued that the DoI was the basis of our government. Your trying to twist the arguement into something else entirely.

This isn't about seperation of church and state right now - the point I am making is whethere the country was FOUNDED "under God" - and because the document that states we are now the US of A has God in it repeatedly - including putting our decision to the "Supreme Judge" - the nation was founded "under God".

As for the DoI not having the force of law - if your correct in that assumption, then the Constitution is incorrect when it refers to the US of A being independant for 12 years... After all - what was that statement based off of? For that matter, if it had no legal standing -then England could not have surrendered and recognized the iindependance of the US because the constitution - which your trying to claim "founded" the US - had not been written yet.

So when Cornwallis surrendered - and the Treaty of Paris was signes - the Constitution was not yet written. According to the "logic" given here - England could not surrender because the "founding" constitution wasn't written - and thus the US didn't exist... :doh:

Want to discuss force of law? Ok - do a search on the Articles of Confederation - the FIRST version of the Constitution - that not only worked off the basis of our independance (as claimed in the DoI) but also formed the basis for the colonial united government. It was this that structured Congress, and it was this Congress that ratified the Treaty of Paris - so are you going to say that the Articles of Confederation also did not have any force of law? Given that they were the basis of government that England surrendered to - one would have to say they did hold force of law.... Bad news - the Articles of Confederation also contains the following (emphasis added):

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

OK - so what is it about document after to DoI - used for 12 years of the US existence as our form of government - that your going to use to claim IT isn't part of our founding?

The 2 documents - DoI and the Articles of Confederation - combined - create, and then structure the government of - the new nation called the United States of America, respectively. In each of those 2 documents, reference to A God is clearly made. This is the establishment and governance beginnings of our nation today. You can wail and gnash your teeth, but its historical fact. In fact, the US Government does in fact hold the Articles of Confederation as the "first" constitution, and represents them as such. One more little historical tidbit for you - the Treaty of Paris - another legally binding document - states:
in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity, and was ratified by the second Continental Congress - meaning they accepted the treaty as ordained by the "Trinity" - a rather "God"ish reference if ever their was one.... Considering this treaty also is used to demonstrate the formal acceptance by England of the existence of the US.

Its funny how those with an anti-god need want to make out like the spiritual was not a part of the founding of this country. So much so that apparently they want to say that the US didn't exist until the current Constitution wsa adopted.....

Good luck with that - historical facts are not on your side.

Sailor Steve

05-22-10, 10:22 AM

You're starting to rant.

What Platapus said was
So the Declaration of Independence can be used as a historical documentation of intent, but you are most correct when you say that it can not be used as a citation for government structure.
And he's exactly right. The Declaration is just that - declaring independence, nothing more. It is a vital part of our history, and as he said is useful for divining what they meant. The Articles attempted to set up a mutually beneficial parent government for the states, but it didn't give congress any power to enforce it. The Constitution is the guidebook for how the government is to be run. It lays down the rules.

No one is saying that they didn't believe in a god. What we are arguing with is the ongoing evangelical contention that the United States was founded as a Christian country. And that is the predominent evangelical party line, deny it all you want.

CaptainHaplo

05-22-10, 10:59 AM

Steve...

I have listed 3 specific documents that respectively create, govern and then by foreign nation recognize - the United States of America. I have demonstrated how all 3 - predating the current Constitution, show in fact that this nation was founded "under God" - aka with an acknowledgement to the Supreme. What has happened here is the continual attempt to mitigate that fact. You can pass it off as "evangelical" all you want - its still historical fact. First the arguement was that the DoI did not mark the start - aka founding - of the nation. Then it was that well it didn't carry force of law. Then it was well the constitution is the founding document. Now its "well your on a rant " and the "evangelical contention" of a "xtian" nation. Funny how folks make a moving target when the last one gets shot.

Well that is were I guess we diverge. I'm ordained - and it is historical fact that this nation was founded "under God" - but NOT "under the Xtian God". I have stated that repeatedly. The problem here is that everyone wants to equate the two - and they are not the same thing. Because they choose to equate the two, people then go "well we have to take "GOD" out - seperation of church and state and all that. That means that ultimately, you would have to take out the DoI, the Treaty of Paris, the Articles of Confederation, etc - all based on this "seperation" which exists only in a personal letter from Jefferson to a religious association.

So here it is just to clear the air. This nation was founded "under God" - to claim otherwise means your willing to ignore historical documents. This nation was not founded "under the Christian God" - and to claim it was is to misrepresent history - as well as ignore the language of the documents which intentionally use deist terms.

Evangilists that claim a Xtian founding are wrong. Just as those that claim no religious foundations are wrong.

To take this back to the OP - show me where in the history or social studies revisions that the Board of Education in Texas is claiming - IN THE CURRICULUM - that this nation was founded on Judeao-Xtian beliefs, and I will be right there disagreeing with then at your side. However, you have to show me in the actual curriculum - because I have skimmed parts and haven't seen it - and I am not willing to take online news articles as credible sources when the actual material is available. Yes - I am fully aware of what Ms. Dumdum or whatever her name is personally believes. Her personal beliefs don't matter - what matters is the actual changes made to what students are taught. Show me the error in there - and not by reading "God" as "Xtian God" (because if it doesn't say Xtian - it doesn't say Xtian....) or accept the fact that the changes made are historically accurate - though the board may INTEND for the facts to be presented in a skewed way - they are not the ones in the classroom teaching.

The only reason this is a real issue is because of how it will affect the rest of the country. Are people really so scared that the intent of a small group in texas is going to "bleed through" to textbooks in New York, Idaho and elsehwere when the wording is in fact historically accurate? Teachers teach - and if they are decent teachers without an agenda, they will let the facts sit, and let each student come to their own conclusions based off those historical facts.

Or is that what scares so many people?

Sailor Steve

05-22-10, 03:13 PM

So here it is just to clear the air. This nation was founded "under God" - to claim otherwise means your willing to ignore historical documents. This nation was not founded "under the Christian God" - and to claim it was is to misrepresent history - as well as ignore the language of the documents which intentionally use deist terms.

Evangilists that claim a Xtian founding are wrong. Just as those that claim no religious foundations are wrong.
What people are afraid of is the same thing Jefferson was afraid of: not people like you who say they want religious freedom, but those same evangelists you say are wrong. They are the loudest and the most threatening.

To take this back to the OP - show me where in the history or social studies revisions that the Board of Education in Texas is claiming - IN THE CURRICULUM - that this nation was founded on Judeao-Xtian beliefs, and I will be right there disagreeing with then at your side.
The problem is exactly the same as Madison's use of "Separation". Just quoting the exact document isn't enough. It's what the user means when they say it. These people may not mean to ultimatly enforce a theocracy on us, but a lot of people are afraid of exactly that, based on past history.

...and if they are decent teachers without an agenda, they will let the facts sit, and let each student come to their own conclusions based off those historical facts.

Or is that what scares so many people?
No. What scares so many people is how few of those "decent teachers without an agenda" seem to actually exist. And that includes both sides of the issue.

CaptainHaplo

05-22-10, 04:05 PM

By george Steve, we are making progress!

I think we agree that the "religious right" often goes to far. However, remember that the intent of the people on the board is one thing - how something is taught is another. As long as the guidelines do not require a specific religious view, but instead focus on the history of the matter - which is the fact that the founders had belief in God (not Xtian, Islamic or anything else) - then the curriculum is factual and accurate.

Where it can go wrong is in 2 places - if the curriculum specifies a specific religion - like Xtian. Having reviewed some of the changes, I haven't seen that. If it is in there, I welcome someone pointing it out. I simply ask they use the curriculum itself vs outside "news" sources. So it looks right now like the first hurdle is taken care of.

Now - on the second one. What scares so many people is how few of those "decent teachers without an agenda" seem to actually exist. And that includes both sides of the issue.

Ok - I can accept that as reasonable - but then, if that is the concern, the focus shouldn't be on whether or not the Texas Board of Education is going "too far" - nor should it be a battle of wills between religious and non-religious folks. We should ALL be focused on the teachers and how they teach. Instead of Fox and CBS and every other media outlet worried about the standard that turns out to be historically accurate - we need to worry about the teachers - on both sides - that go to far. Course, we have to fight the teachers union to deal with them, but thats another issue.

Stealth Hunter

05-22-10, 08:47 PM

Ducimus - I still challenge you - or anyone else - to find this "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution...

In the Constitution? It's not in there. Just as there's nothing in there about Correlation of Church and States. Fortunately, the United States is not just run off of what the Constitution says, but also what the courts say. The Supreme Court has numerous times ruled in favor of this concept of Separation of Church and State by interpreting the Establishment Clause to mean exactly this... thereby making it a legitimate legal argument. That's kind of their job: to interpret the law for the entire country for the remainder of its life.

McCollum v. the Board of Education from 1948
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1947/1947_90

Torcaso v. Watkins from 1961
http://www.answers.com/topic/torcaso-v-watkins

Engel v. Vitale from 1962
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_468

There's others, but the most important is by far Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Supreme Court established a three-part test to determine if an act violates the Separation of Church and State.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_89

And then there's the Treaty of Tripoli, that before all these cases dictated that the United States was to have a secular government, as in religion/theocratic elements were and are not permitted into entering it- ratified unanimously by Congress.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/tripoli.gif

Though Madison, chief drafter of the Constitution, did believe in it and said that's what was meant for the First Amendment.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

The United States has no official religion. We are not a Christian nation, we are not an Islamic nation, we are not a Jewish nation, etc. We were never intended to be any of these things. The majority of the Founding Fathers were not Christians, including Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Allen, and Paine.

Specifically, on Washington.

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more." -Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was published in New York two weeks later

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington had told him he believed no more in Christianity than he did." -Thomas Jefferson in his journal; February 1800; quoted from Jefferson's Works, V.4, p.562

"Sir, Washington was a Deist." -Reverend Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of the Pohick Episcopalian Church Martha attended and George would occasionally attend, in a letter to Reverend Bird Wilson- a minister in Albany, New York that I just mentioned previously

"The pictures that represent him on his knees in the winter forest at Valley Forge are even silly caricatures. Washington was at least not sentimental, and he had nothing about him of the Pharisee that displays his religion at street corners or out in the woods in the sight of observers, or where his portrait could be taken by 'our special artist'!" -Reverend M.J. Savage, his private journal

"There was a clergyman at this dinner who blessed the food and said grace after they had done eating and had brought in the wine. I was told that General Washington said grace when there was no clergyman at the table, as fathers of a family do in America. The first time that I dined with him there was no clergyman and I did not perceive that he made this prayer, yet I remember that on taking his place at the table, he made a gesture and said a word, which I took for a piece of politeness, and which was perhaps a religious action. In this case his prayer must have been short; the clergyman made use of more forms. We remained a very long time at the table. They drank 12 or 15 healths with Madeira wine. In the course of the meal beer was served and grum, rum mixed with water." -Commissary-General Claude Blanchard, writing in his journal

"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts: that as pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning." -Reverend Dr. James Abercrombie, in a letter to a friend in 1833, Sprague's Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 5, p. 394

"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant. I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them am as I now do you." -Reverend William White, the first bishop of Pennsylvania, friend of Washington and bishop of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended off and on for about 25 years whenever he happened to be in the city, in a letter to Colonel Mercer of Fredericksberg, Virginia, August 15, 1835

"His behavior in church was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.... Although I was often in the company of this great man, and had the honor of often dining at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.... Within a few days of his leaving the Presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory." -Reverend Bird Wilson, in a letter to Reverend Benjamin Christopher Parker of Trenton, dated November 28, 1832

"On communion Sundays, he left the church with me after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back after my grandmother." -George Custis, letter to Mr. Louis Sparks, February 26, 1833

Attending a Christian church now and again is all fair and good, but it hardly makes the man a Christian- especially when you consider that Martha was the one who was devoted to the Christian faith in her very nature in the entire family. With that said, where does he make the reference that he is a Christian or believes in Jesus Christ in any of his writings? He doesn't. "Divine Author" is not "Jesus Christ". "Our blessed Religion" is not "Christianity". Case in point, he makes references to a god, but never the Christian one. With the lack of mealtime prayer, lack of communion, etc. taken into account, this reinforces the position he was a Deist. To clarify, he believed there was one god (evidenced by his writings), and from what he made available about his beliefs, he was not as open as a Theist; in the literal sense of the word, he was a Monodeist.

Then there's a few on the others mentioned.

JEFFERSON

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." -letter to John Adams; April 11, 1823

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Jesus by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being." -letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."-letter to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."- "Notes on Virginia"

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."-letter to J. Carey, 1816

FRANKLIN
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." - "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728

MADISON
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." -James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty"

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

ADAMS

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
-letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
- letter to John Taylor

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

PAINE

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

ALLEN

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not."-preface, "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man"

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Sorry, but Germany was Catholic. Hitler was a Catholic. Hell- he met with Pope Pius XII and received anointment from him. The military incorporated religious elements into it all the times, with belt buckles proclaiming "God Is With Us/God Be With Us/God With Us" ("Gott Mit Uns"). Germany was officially considered Catholic by the League of Nations...

http://countercultureconservative.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pope-pius-xii-2.jpg
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/tamerpage/buckle.jpg

Furthermore, Stalin was raised a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and he never did relinquish his faith. Later in life, he just sort of took on the attitude of "I don't care". If anything, Communism was his religion lol. I have to ask, are you seriously trying to connect religion as the main driving force of these legendary historical figures, whilst completely ignoring the politics that they believed in- nevermind fought violently to create and maintain?

It'd be wrong to imply that non believers are any less murderous than anyone else. Religion is just a handy excuse, a non religious excuse would serve just as well.

Not really. If anything, it would just be pointless because it doesn't actually prove anything. Historically speaking, however, we can see who's done the most killing- and I mean that as in who has done it for religious reasons. Though the concept of Atheism being a religion, nevermind a belief, is entirely incorrect. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. Even assuming that Hitler and Stalin had been Atheists, even though they weren't, and their actions did speak that they believed people should have disbelief in a god, they're unfortunately not Atheists by definition, because their motives are not ones that constitute a lack of belief.

Besides, August responded perfectly.

Although he was wrong, making his response completely worthless lol. With that said, you claim you're an Atheist, and you've met "more tolerant Christians than Atheists". Pray tell how many Atheists have you actually met? And how well have you studied the religious history of the world lol?

Tolerence isn't about someone attempting to influence your belief system to reflect theirs. Tolerence is allowing someone to exist peacefully despite a difference in beliefs.

Which unfortunately is never going to happen because of the religious differences in the world and the fanatics out there that each one has. This idea of global peace and tolerance is a childish and unrealistic concept, to say the least. It will never happen; sorry to disappoint.

And, certainly, while their are intolerent Christians, most just live and let live - sure, they may not *LIKE*, say, gays, but they certainly aren't attempting to infringe their existance.

Existence? Not necessarily. True there are some who believe in killing them and removing them from existence, that it's a disease that must be purged, but more of these churches believe in simply restricting what they can and can't do than that radical approach (apparently it's fine to infringe upon their rights). The Baptists are a particularly poignant example of what I'm talking about... not just groups like the Westboro Baptists but also entire churches, like the First Baptist Church, the "Holy Rollers" as I like to call them... or indeed the Catholic Church. They aren't exactly nor have they ever been keen on homosexuality.

Atheists are quite the opposite, in general - many want to remove any and all vestiges of religion from any place they may see it,

Then they're not Atheists lol. Though to say "Atheists are quite the opposite" is stereotyping, even to say "many want to"; it's still stereotyping. Again, Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. A lack of belief in anything: god, religion, spirituality political theories, etc.

even though the simple sight of most Christian symbology does nothing to infringe upon an atheist.

Again, it depends on what sect you're talking to. The Baptists certainly would disagree with you. What's never made sense to me is that... you're all supposed to be Christians. Why do you all have different beliefs and systems then? You're all supposed to be following the same god. Why aren't you then? You've got the Catholics, the Baptists, the Calvinists, the Quakers, etc. all with some radically different beliefs. But why? It doesn't make sense, and certainly doesn't do anything to convince me invest any of my time in religious affairs.

In my personal experience, most Christians are fairly pleasant people to be around -

Strange then you chose not to stay one and decided to side with us who don't really give a damn as far as god and religion goes.

most self-proclaimed atheists (although the people I'm referring to are more appropriately termed "anti-theist"), on the other hand, come off as condescending dolts who's rationale for their own perspective is, quite sadly and humorously, fatally flawed logically.

Of course, like you said, they're more appropriately termed anti-Theists, not Atheists. As I've said 5 times before, Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. Or really much of a belief in anything.

PS: Oh, and I've had plenty of people try to "force" their beliefs on me, and I've said no and moved on. Simple. I've even had someone try to sell me a candy bar while I was entering the grocery store. Oh no!!!

Of course, when it comes to matters of law and the way the country is managed, you can't just say no and move on. And it's not just religion, but all kinds of beliefs. Like this thread's case. If this does go into effect, we can't just object to it and move on; our kids will be stuck with having to learn it in order to graduate from a public school in the state of Texas, even though this is nothing more than historical revisionism. The statements about the Civil War being taught in a "biased" manner comes across as disturbing to say the least. I wonder how many people here have actually read a school text book on this matter of history. Because quite honestly, it's not anything else than a short, brief summary of what happened.

This is Prentice Hall's "America - Pathways to the Present: Modern American History". This is what we use locally here in Texas. It was written in association with the American Heritage Organization. If you want me to scan the pages, I'll gladly do it for you to show you I have a legitimate textbook used in American classrooms and am not just typing this up randomly.

First off, about the authors.

Andrew Cayton, Ph.D.

Professor of History at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Received his B.A. from the University of Virginia and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Brown University. He specializes in political and social history of the United States of America.

Linda Reed, Ph.D.

Reed directs the African American Studies Program at the University of Houston, Texas. She received her B.S. from Alabama A&M University, her M.A. from the University of Alabama, and her Ph.D. from Indiana University. She specializes in 20th century American history.

Elisabeth Israels Perry, Ph.D.

Research Professor of History at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Received her Ph.D. in history from the University of California at Los Angeles. Period of specialization is in mid to late 19th century American history.

Allan M. Winkler, Ph.D.

Professor of History at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Received his B.A. from Harvard University, his M.A. from Columbia University, and his Ph.D. from Yale University. Specialized in 20th century political and social history.

Content Consultants:

SENIOR CURRICULUM CONSULTANT
Dr. Pedro Castillo, Professor of History, University of California

CONSTITUTION CONSULTANT
William A. McClenaghan, Department of Political Science, Oregon State University

RELIGION CONSULTANT
Dr. Jon Butler, Department of History, Yale University

HOLOCAUST CONSULTANT
Dr. Karen Friedman, Director, Braun Holocaust Institute

READING CONSULTANT
Dr. Bonnie Armbruster, Professor of Education, University of Illinois

BLOCK SCHEDULING CONSULTANT
Dr. Michael Rettig, Assistant Professor of Education, James Madison University

INTERNET CONSULTANT
Brent Muirhead, Teacher, Social Studies Department, South Forsyth High School

Historian Reviewers:

Elizabeth Blackmar, Department of History, Columbia University
William Childs, Department of History, Ohio State University
Donald L. Fixico, Department of History, Western Michigan University
George Forgie, Department of History, University of Texas
Mario Garcia, Department of History, University of California
Gerald Gill, Department of History, Tufts University
Huping Ling, Division of Social Science, Truman State University (near Macon, MO, for the record)
Melton A. McLaurin, Department of History, University of North Carolina
Roy Rosensweig, Department of History, George Mason University
Susan Smulyan, Department of American Civilization, Brown University

Teacher Advisory Panel:

Alfred B. Cate, Jr., Memphis Central High School
Elsie E. Clark, Savannah Johnson High School
Vern Cobb, Okemos High School
Alice D'Addario, Huntington Station Walt Whitman High School
Michael DaDurka, Long Beach David Starr Jordan High School
Richard Di Giacomo, San Jose Yerba Buena High School
James Fogarty, Arroyo Grande High School
Jake Gordon, Fayetteville Pine Forest High School
Paula M. Hanzel, Sacramento Kit Carson Middle School
Richard Hart, El Cajon High School
Rosemary Hess, South Bend John Adams High School
Phillip James, Sudbury Lincoln-Sudbury High School
Gary L. Kelly, Novi High School
Ronald Maggiano, Springfield West Springfield High School
Steve McClung, San Jose Santa Teresa High School
Brent Muirhead, Cumming South Forsyth High School
Jim Mullen, Campbell Del Mar High School
John Nehl, Bend Mountain View High School
Ellen Oicles, San Jose Piedmont Hills High School
Wayne D. Rice, Carlsbad High School (California)
Ed Robinson, Tulare Western High School
Kerry Steed, Shingle Springs Ponderosa High School
George A. Stewart, Hoffman Estates High School
Walter T. Thurnau, Jamestown Southwestern Central High School
Donald S. Winters, Davis High School (California)
Ruth Writer, Buchanan High School

Student Board Review

Brenda Borchardt, Cudahy High School
Jeff Burton, Woodlawn Northwest High School
Rebecca A. Day, Moore High School
Ashante Dobbs, Atlanta Frederick Douglass High School
Lena K. Franks, Philadelphia Frankford high School
Katie Holcombe, Cumming South Forsyth High School
Phillip Payne, Moore High School (Oklahoma)
Brooke J. Peterson, Sudbury Lincoln-Sudbury High School

CHAPTER II: The American Civil War
SECTION I: From Bull Run to Antietam

In May 1861, after the Upper South (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) seceded from the Union, the Confederate States of America shifted their capital from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, Virginia. By July, some 35,000 northern volunteers were training in Washington, D.C., just 100 miles away. "Forward to Richmond!" urged a headline in the New York Tribune. Many Northerners believed that capturing the Confederate capital would bring a quick end to the Civil War. No one predicted that this war between the Union and Confederacy would last for 4 long years.

THE FIRST BATTLE OF BULL RUN

General Irvin McDowell, commander of the Union troops, was not yet ready to fight. Most of his troops, however, had volunteered for just 90 days service and their term was not nearly finished. "This is not an army," he told the President. "It will take a long time to make an army." Despite this warning, President Lincoln ordered his general into action.

On July 16, McDowell marched his poorly prepared army into Virginia. His objective was the town of Manassas, an important railroad junction southwest of Washington. Opposing him was a smaller Confederate force under General P.G.T. Beauregard, the officer who had captured Fort Sumter. The Confederates were camped all along Bull Run, a stream that passed about 4 miles north of Manassas.

The Union army took nearly 4 days to march 25 miles to Manassas. The soldiers' lack of training contributed to their slow pace. McDowell later explained, "They stopped every moment to pick blackberries or get water . . . . They would not keep in the ranks, order as much as you pleased."

Beauregard had no trouble keeping track of McDowell's progress. Accompanying the troops was a huge crowd of reporters, politicians, and other civilians from Washington, planning to picnic and watch the battle.

McDowell's delays allowed Beauregard to strengthen his army. Some 11,000 additional Confederate troops were packed into freight cars and sped to the scene. (This was the first time in the history of warfare that troops were moved by train.) When McDowell finally attacked on July 21, he faced a force nearly the size of his own. Beyond the Confederate lines lay the road to Richmond.

After hours of hard fighting, the Union soldiers appeared to be winning. Their slow advance pushed the Confederates back. However, some Virginia soldiers commanded by General Thomas Jackson (better known as "Stonewall Jackson") refused to give up. Seeing this, another Confederate officer rallied his retreating troops, shouting: "Look! There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Rally behind the Virginians!" The Union advance was stopped, and Jackson had earned his nickname.

Tired and discouraged, in the late afternoon the Union forces began to fall back. Then a trainload of fresh Confederate troops arrived and launched a counter-attack. The orderly Union retreat fell apart. Hundreds of soldiers dropped their weapons and started to run northwards. The stampeded into the sightseers who had followed them to the battlefield.

As the army disintegrated, soldiers and civilians were caught in a tangle of carriages, wagons, and horses on the narrow road. Terrified that the Confederate troops would catch them, they ran headlong for the safety of Washington. The Confederates, however, were also disorganized and exhausted, and they did not pursue the Union army.

The first major battle of the Civil War thus ended. It became known as the First Battle of Bull Run, because the following year another bloody battle occurred at almost exactly the same site.

Compared to what would come, this battle was not a huge action. About 35,000 were involved on each side. The Union suffered about 2,900 casualties, the military term for those killed, wounded, captured or missing in action. Confederate casualties were fewer than 2,000. Later battles would prove much more costly.

PREPARING FOR WAR

Bull Run caused some Americans on both sides to suspect that winning the war might not be easy. "The fat is in the fire now," wrote Lincoln's private secretary. "The preparations for war will be continued with increased vigor by the Government." Congress quick authorized the president to raise a million three-year volunteers. In Richmond, a clerk in the Confederate War Department began to worry. "We are resting on our oars, while the enemy is drilling and equipping 500,000 or 600,000 men."

Strengths and Weaknesses

In several resepcts, the Union was much better prepared for war than the Confederacy. For example, the Union had more than double the Confederacy's miles of railroad track. This made the movement of troops, food, and supplies quicker and easier. More than twice as many factories were in the North as in the South making it easier to produce the guns, ammunition, shoes and other items it needed for its army. The North's economy was well balanced between farming and industry. And the North had far more money in its banks than the South. Finally, the North already had a functioning government, and, although they were small, an existing army and navy.

Most importantly, two thirds of the nation's population lived in Union states. This made more men available to the Union army, but allowed for a sufficient labor force to remain behind for farm and factory work.

The Confederates had some advantages. Because 7 of the nation's 8 military colleges were in the South, a majority of the nation's trained officers were Southerners. When the war began, most of these officers sided with the Confederacy. In addition, the southern army did not need to initiate any military action to win the war. All the needed to do was maintain a defensive position and keep from being beaten. In contrast, to restore unity to the nation the North would have to attack and conquer the South. Southerners had the added advantage of fighting to preserve their way of life and, they believed, their right to self-govern.

Union Military Strategies

After the fall of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln ordered a naval blockade of the seceded states. By shutting down the South's ports along the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf of Mexico, Lincoln hoped to keep the South from shipping its cotton to Europe. He also wanted to prevent Southerners from importing the manufactured goods they needed.

Lincoln's blockade was part of a strategy developed by General Winfield Scott, the hero of the Mexican-American War and commander of all U.S. troops in 1861. The general realized it would take a long time to raise and train an army that was big enough and strong enough to invade the South successfully. Instead, he proposed to choke off the Confederacy with the blockade and to use troops and gunboats to gain control of the Mississippi River. Scott believed this would pressure the South to seek peace and would restore the nation without a bloody war.

Northern newspapers sneered at Scott's strategy. They scornfully named it the Anaconda Plan, after a type of stake that coils around its victims and crushes them to death. Despite the Union defeat at Bull Run, political pressure for action and a quick victory remained strong in 1861. This public clamor for results led to several more attempting to capture Richmond.

Confederate War Strategies

The South's basic war plan was to prepare and wait. Many Southerners hoped that Lincoln would let them go in peace. "All we ask is to be let alone," announced Confederate President Jefferson Davis, shortly after secession. He planned for a defensive war.

Southern strategy called for a war of attrition. In this type of war, one side inflicts continuous losses on the enemy in order to wear down their strength. Southerners counted on their forces being able to turn back Union attacks until Northerners lost the will to fight. However, this strategy did not take into account the North's tremendous advantage in the resources needed to fight a long war. In the end, it was the North that waged a war of attrition against the South.

Southern strategy in another area also backfired. The South produced some 75% of the world's cotton. Historically, much of this cotton supplied the textile millions of Great Britain and France. However, Confederate leaders convinced most southern planters to stop exporting cotton. The South believed that the sudden loss of cotton would cause problems for Britain and France. They hoped that European industrial leaders would then pressure their governments to help the South gain its independence in exchange for restoring the flow of cotton.

Instead, the Europeans turned to India and Egypt for their cotton. By the time Southerners recognized the failure of this strategy, the Union blockade had become so effective that little cotton could get out. With no income from cotton exports, the South post the money it needed to buy guns and maintain its armies.

Tactics and Technology

For generations, European commanders had fought battles by concentrating their forces, assaulting a position, and driving the enemy away. Cannons and muskets in early times were neither accurate nor capable of repeating fire very rapidly. Generals relied on masses of charging troops to overwhelm the enemy. Most generals in the Civil War had been trained in these methods. Many on both sdies had seen such tactics work well in the Mexican-American War. However, the technology that soldiers faced in the 1860s was much improved over what these officers had faced on the battlefields in the 1830s and 1840s.

By the Civil War, gun makers knew that bullet-shaped ammunition drifted less as it flew through the air than a round ball, the older type of ammunition. They had also learned that rifling, a spiral groove cut on the inside of a gun barrel, would make a fired bullet pick up sin, causing it to travel farther and straighter.

Older muskets, which had no rifling, were accurate only to about 40 yards. Bullets fired from rifles, as the new guns were called, hit targets at 500 yards and more. In addition, they could be reloaded and fired much faster.

Improvements in artillery were just as deadly. Instead of relying only on iron cannon balls, gunners could also fire shells, devices that exploded in the air or when they hit something. Artillery often fired canister, a special type of shell filled with rounded balls or bullets. This turned cannons into giant shotguns.

Thousands of soldiers went to their deaths by following orders to cross open fields against such weapons. Commanders on both sides, however, were slow to recognize that traditional methods exposed their troops to slaughter.

There's more I'll post later. But oh no dear god in heaven it's so biased. Run away. In terror. It's really been influenced by the left. And the right. My god we're all going to die...

Please. If anything, these people should be worried about how damned BRIEF these books are. This chapter on the Civil War's actual battles lasts for five pages. When I went to school, not even in the United States but in IRAN, we spent weeks studying Darius the Great, Xerxes, the Crusades, etc. And when I mean weeks, I mean like 7 or 8 weeks per subject... now, the kids spend what, a couple max before they have a test and move on?

We should also be worried about the curriculum. It seems like all these teachers do nowadays is prepare the kids for tests. Tests, tests, tests. That's it. Seriously WTF?

If you mean "force" as something stronger than what I'm implying, than you should reserve your hate for those particular people - not generalize an entire group because of those idiots.

Oh the irony.

In the end, doing so makes you the smaller person, as that's akin to saying that because a black guy mugged you, all blacks should be afforded no tolerance.

Of course, being black isn't a way of belief that millions even billions of people follow though lol. Religion is. Which is exactly why I take the position of, "I don't really care. Seriously, I don't. I see no logical reason to just believe in a god, nevermind the particular specific god of a religion, and I see reason why religion has many more downsides than plus sides- not necessarily for me, but for others around me. So I'm out. Sorry if you don't like it, but guess what? I don't care."

Y'know i've had religious proselytizers knock on my door maybe 10 times in the past 30 years. A simple "not interested" has always sent them away without a problem. Apparently they can indeed "just live and let live".

Seriously I just don't see why such a rare and insignificant event should elicit such strong negative emotions.

Curious am I, though; how many anti-religious or anti-Theistic or even Atheists have you had come knocking on your door, asking you to join them?

tater

05-22-10, 09:35 PM

Hate to add nothing, but awesome post stealth hunter. Awesome.
:yeah:

<EDIT>

OK, I will add something. As I said before, separation of church and state protects religion more than it harms it—by far. Any chink you exploit in separation aids enemies of everything we hold important as a nation. Sure, Christians might get little more than scientific ignorance then tend to seek politically (ID)—and that's what many really want, clearly—but in return, we'll see islamist nonsense pushed next, and the precedent will have been set (not to mention those backwards idiots also hate science as much as any other fundies do).

A strictly secular government that protects peoples' right to practice whatever silly fairytale they wish is the best possible world for believers. In any other system they are a vote away from their faith being obligatorily replaced with some other faith. Better to allow no one to take away their right to practice, and allow no one to compel any such religious education—the next religion taught might well be someone else's, not your own.

August

05-22-10, 09:42 PM

Curious am I, though; how many anti-religious or anti-Theistic or even Atheists have you had come knocking on your door, asking you to join them?

Why none that I can think of off hand. Are you trying to make the point that Atheists are actually less of a bother than Theists? If so, at least the Theists go away when you tell them too. I've yet to see an Atheist gotten rid of so easily. Around here they're like locusts drawn to any thread that even touches upon religious beliefs.

BTW: White text on a white backround is impossible to read. You're lucky I caught the "originally posted by August" as i scrolled down to Haps post otherwise I would have not responded. Next time you copy/paste text please highlight your entire post before you send it and click the "Remove text formatting" button left of the Font choice box. That'll ensure the text color is readable regardless of which forum skin folks may be using.

tater

05-22-10, 09:52 PM

Regarding atheists, this is a discussion forum where people are free to join, or not join any given discussion. It's entirely different than knocking on your door.

FWIW, I've had environmentalists knock on my door, though (Sierra Club, etc). I talk to them, give em a drink, etc. Then ask what they think of fission power ;) If they try and lecture me, I calmly pwn them and tell them why anyone who really cared about the environemnt, air quality, etc, would be massively pro-nuke :)

CaptainHaplo

05-22-10, 11:40 PM

Stealth-Hunter - an excellent post indeed, though we are going to have to agree to disagree on some points.

One I want to deal with is this:
If this does go into effect, we can't just object to it and move on; our kids will be stuck with having to learn it in order to graduate from a public school in the state of Texas, even though this is nothing more than historical revisionism. The statements about the Civil War being taught in a "biased" manner comes across as disturbing to say the least.

Ok - where in the text of changes do you see historical revisionism? I ask you to point out the changes as they are in the documentation - not what some news outlet tells you is happening.

If there are historical issues with the curriculum, let's deal with them.

AngusJS

05-23-10, 10:17 AM

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

Geez - first you guys say that the DoI is not the founding document of our country - and now you admit it is - but that it isn't the basis of our government.I didn't say the DoI was a founding document. That was sarcasm. :roll:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.That's it? One passing reference in a document that was voided 6 years after being ratified, and that sounds more like a rhetorical flourish than anything else? And based on that you say the country was founded in belief? If that had actually been the case, the drafters would have said as much in the part of the document that's actually relevant to the founding. And if they thought they were founding a believing nation, wouldn't they have done the same in the Constitution, the only document that's relevant today? If it was important in the AoC, why didn't it make it into the Constitution?

The Founders were Deists and Christians. They could have been Kali worshipers for all it matters. What's important is how they actually went about the founding.

Stealth Hunter

05-23-10, 04:22 PM

Why none that I can think of off hand.

That's what I thought.

Are you trying to make the point that Atheists are actually less of a bother than Theists?

Actually, no, that wasn't my original intention. But the fact that you just said they don't come to your door and bother you to "join them" is confirmation enough that they're not a recruitment bother like a lot of Theistic groups are (and some of the other weirdos out there, like the Scientologists and Mormons).

If so, at least the Theists go away when you tell them too.

Of course, the fact that Atheists aren't coming to your door at all makes this pretty much moot. It's all Theists in your case. Not Agnostics or Atheists. Same here, too; no Atheists or Agnostics bothering me, just Theists.

I've yet to see an Atheist gotten rid of so easily.

Though, in the first place, you have yet to see an Atheist even come to your door.

Around here they're like locusts drawn to any thread that even touches upon religious beliefs.

So they're exactly like the Theists here too? Interesting. Very interesting indeed.

Ok - where in the text of changes do you see historical revisionism?

The insinuations that the establishment of the Confederacy was justifiable and perfectly legitimate, despite it being by the very legal definition an act of treason, and the stated desire by Mrs. Dunbar to portray it in the light of being, once again, a justifiable "armed rebellion against the United States government to protect states' rights". She's the founder of the historical revisionist site WallBuilders. I'm not the only one calling her out on her BS either; plenty of historians are too. Even their fellow Christians are. (See this link for a Christian Ethics report on them; they don't agree at all with the nonsense they're coming up with either: http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/003/Wallbuilders%20or%20Mythbuilders%20By%20Nicholas%2 0P%20Miller_003_17_.htm).

http://www.wallbuilders.com/default.asp

I mean honestly, if you're going to consider the words of Jefferson Davis, alongside the elected President of the United States of America Abraham Lincoln, you should be doing the same for other leaders in the world of the time that had direct contact with the United States in history. You should be considering the words of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hidecki Tojo (and indeed the Emperor, Hirohito) alongsides the words of Roosevelt and Churchill; I don't see too many textbooks these days that have quotes and speeches and the like from Stalin in them either. He should be put in there too. Put Tito and Mao in there too. While we're at it, lets reexamine World War I. Let's put not only the words and speeches of Woodrow Wilson in there, but also the words and speeches of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, King George V, Emperor Franz Joseph I, Sultans Mehmed V and VI, King Victor Emmanuel III, King Albert I, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Kerensky, etc. in there. We're trying to consider history from all points of view here, after all lol.

The only real problem with the textbooks is how brief they are. The Civil War in the textbook I used for the paragraphs I posted above has a chapter that lasts for like 15 pages total, with 4 chapters total- only one of which is dedicated solely to the actual politics behind the war. It's got the history right, it's just too damn short.

I ask you to point out the changes as they are in the documentation - not what some news outlet tells you is happening.

Certainly. Just did it for you. If that's not enough, try their website and find out the idiocratic drivel they're spouting via the "Search" box. Not just about the Civil War or the Founding Fathers, but also about World War I, World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, Reconstruction, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican-American War, and the Cold War.

If there are historical issues with the curriculum, let's deal with them.

There were no real historical issues with the curriculum in the first place. These self-admitted revisionists were elected to represent their respective school boards and decided they didn't agree personally with what was being taught, so the entire thing should be redone and everybody's child in these PUBLIC schools should have to learn what they want them to learn, how they want them to learn. Historical issues are now the problem. And thankfully, there are people out there trying to combat them.

CaptainHaplo

05-23-10, 04:45 PM

Stealth Hunter - when I asked about issues in the curriculum - you steered toward the "wallbuilder" website, as well as stated that there was "no real historical problem" with the existing curriculum. Ok - while I would disagree (since as an example the kids were being taught that this nation is a democracy - which is incorrect - and has been amended to a "constitutional republic" - which is accurate) - there were changes to be made. It also is the duty of the board, at specifed intervals, to review and amend the curriculum. That is what was done. So whether or not the last one was "pretty ok" is irrelevant.

The wallbuilders site is not the curriculum. Its the views of those that support a certain viewpoint. The fact that some of those same people are part of the Texas Board of Education is no more a civil horror than avowed communists being advisors or leaders in federal government - which we have seen just recently.

The curriculum is a guideline - stating what the teacher is to teach. How they choose to teach it is not specified - and so unless there are historical inaccuracies in the curriculum itself - and so far no one has pointed any out - I still don't see the problem.

The question I put to you - and I welcome you or anyone else to answer, is in the actual changes to the curriculum - where you do you have an objection?

Dimitrius07

05-23-10, 05:47 PM

There are a inside jobs and there are copy past jobs :D, but hey!!! "Look how cool i am mam and dad!!!!!". The good old internet at his best.

Well lets add something relative to the topic for a change (or at least try).

This tactics mostly used by radical groups ALL over the globe (stay calm subsim fascists). After all the bigger the lie the more people will believe it.And who are the most easy target in this pathetic case? Children. So what i am going to do is to give you an example how it look like from my point of view.
Ok. Russia-"Russia for Russians only" edition, random son and random dad.
--------
Son - hello Papa
Dad - hello son
Son - Dad why our grandfather was a bad ass nazi b@stard
Dad - Whoooooooooootttttttttt :o
Son - I just learn in school today that our soldiers in ww2 hunt down the innocent Aryans and put them in concentration camps
Dad - fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu :dead:
--------
This is what some individuals are trying to do. And every group have its own version of history for YA. O well, i`am done, spell check anyone?

Snestorm

05-23-10, 06:24 PM

@Dimitius07

Excellent post! And nice to be back on track.

That's why I often refer to Social Indoctrination, rather than "Education".

CaptainHaplo

05-23-10, 06:59 PM

And therein gentleman - lies the whole point. This is a battle for the minds of children.

Are we going to continue to put out false information (democracy vs republic as an example) - or are we going to correct inaccuracies? If your ok with kids in school learning stuff that simply is in error - well - thats up to you.

This is why I have put out the challenge - review the changes - and point out in the changes themselves (and not "news" articles) where the problesm are. I have linked to the actual document of changes - and have asked 3 times in this thread where exactly people take issue. So far - no one has dared touch that question.

Instead - we get "well the last version was ok" even though it had errors. Is this one perfect? No - I doubt anything can be - but for every "flaw" that it introduces, I am willing to bet I can match things it fixes to be factual. Course - when no one takes the first challenge - I can't even make the second one! :rotfl2:

Stealth Hunter

05-23-10, 07:50 PM

Stealth Hunter - when I asked about issues in the curriculum - you steered toward the "wallbuilder" website,

"Steered" implies that I'm trying (or rather I tried) to dodge the issue, which I did not. The WallBuilder website simply shows the fantasy land these people live in, and why their position is not admissible in this case- furthermore to demonstrate their motives for making this textbook change. The responses to their lunacy on their website merely highlight the numerous inaccuracies and blatant dishonesty they have for history, and indeed science.

as well as stated that there was "no real historical problem" with the existing curriculum.

Before this was passed, I mean. The current existing curriculum, they one they just voted on and passed, has made a problem of it because of the above mentioned historical revisionism towards the American Civil War and indeed the founding of the country, not to mention the figures for each historical event.

the kids were being taught that this nation is a democracy - which is incorrect - and has been amended to a "constitutional republic" - which is accurate)

The United States government is a Constitutional Democratic Republic today, among other things. It was founded originally under the Articles of Confederation as... a Democratic Confederation. But because too many elements of Direct Democracy and Individual Statism existed, the country could get nothing done. Each state was practically its own individual nation. Ergo, the reason for the successful ratification of the United States Constitution. The Constitution establishes the country as two things: a Republic (the people elect their Congressional members and their leader) and a Democracy (the people are free to voice their opinions and may be directly involved in the affairs of government via the voting/campaigning processes; it's true when Lincoln said "for the people, of the people, by the people"). So is it wrong to teach the United States was historically founded as a democracy? No, because originally it was, and the beliefs in democracy are maintained to this very day by not only the law but the people. As far as what it is and isn't now, in the modern era, that's more of a question to be put to a government class, not a history class.

- there were changes to be made.

Which have not done anything to teach the correct history of the United States. The history the books had previously was just fine; accuracy wasn't the problem. They were just too brief, not at all in-depth. Now, accuracy is a problem with them trying to teach that the CSA was a movement that was not treasonous (even though by legal definition it was in fact an act of treason) and that the country was founded on the principles of Christianity/religion, despite the words of the Founding Fathers (whom they also claim were mostly religious, despite the contradictory facts) and indeed the words of not only the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but also the words and rulings of the Supreme Court, Congress, and several presidents.

It also is the duty of the board, at specifed intervals, to review and amend the curriculum. That is what was done.

Nobody's debating that. Nobody's even trying to discuss that with the legal authorities right now. What they are going on about, however, is what they've decided to amend, and how they've decided they should amend it.

So whether or not the last one was "pretty ok" is irrelevant.

Not really, considering that the last one was in terms of accuracy was at least correct in what it stated compared to this hogwash they're trying to put out there in the schools.

The wallbuilders site is not the curriculum.

Master Of The Obvious.

Its the views of those that support a certain viewpoint.

Which are the exact same views the exact same people who founded the website (at least in the case of Mrs. Dunbar) are trying to put into the textbooks. This demonstrates exactly my point, and the point everybody else is trying to get across: the only reason they're amending the textbooks to say these things is because they don't like how the original ones don't support their views; how the original ones don't say that the United States was founded as a Christian/religious nation, that the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians, that the Civil War was not an act of treason, and that the rebel Confederates were justified in their cause. The reason why the original textbooks didn't say these things? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY. The United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up.

The fact that some of those same people are part of the Texas Board of Education is no more a civil horror than avowed communists being advisors or leaders in federal government - which we have seen just recently.

Communists? I thought they were Socialists? Or are they Fascists? Nazis maybe? It changes every day with groups like the Tea Party. But that's not what we're talking about. It's not a matter of being a "civil horror", it's a matter of these people are being dishonest to twist the facts to their agenda. Even if they're not doing it intentionally, and they honestly do believe this stuff (which it wouldn't surprise me if they did), it's still not the historical truth. The kids are there to learn what actually happened in history; the original textbooks lived up to that. They were accurate, albeit brief. Now, they're inaccurate. How long is it until they decide to change something else in the historical textbooks? How long is it until they do it with the science textbooks? These exact same people advocate Creationism, you know; when are they going to say that teachers HAVE to teach "Intelligent Design" (they've started calling it that to make it sound more scientific) along with evolution? It's time to stop this dumbassery before it goes any further. It's not about "censorship" or anything like these people like to cry about; it's what's fact and what's not.

The curriculum is a guideline - stating what the teacher is to teach.

The only real downside being that it's too brief; but now the information that the teacher is to teach is inaccurate, making it entirely problematic.

How they choose to teach it is not specified - and so unless there are historical inaccuracies in the curriculum itself - and so far no one has pointed any out - I still don't see the problem.

Where have you been? Under a rock? Twiddling your thumbs in the bathtub perhaps? I reiterate, the United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up. They want to teach that the founders were mostly Christians who created the country based upon Christian/religious principles and that the Civil War was not an act of treason on the part of the Confederacy and that it was merely an armed rebellion against the United States government, to "protect states rights" (the main issue of which that was in dispute during the election of 1860 being slavery and arguments for and against it; the Southern Dixiecrats were afraid it would be abolished by Lincoln and would thereby cripple their economy; there is a reason you know why the country became rich so quickly in its brief history up to that point).

The question I put to you - and I welcome you or anyone else to answer, is in the actual changes to the curriculum - where you do you have an objection?

Alright now I know you haven't been paying attention. I've already stated where my objections lie; others have too. Why you can't see this is beyond me. It's painful to see the obliviousness. It really is.

Are we going to continue to put out false information (democracy vs republic as an example) - or are we going to correct inaccuracies?

I don't know. You tell me. If things continue with this whole affair in Texas, inaccurate information will simply be continued to be put out there. Should it be stopped? Absolutely. Are there people fighting to stop it? Thankfully, yes, there are.

If your ok with kids in school learning stuff that simply is in error - well - thats up to you.

Indeed. I, for one, am not. Nor are most of my contemporaries here and elsewhere. Though some, including Mrs. Dunbar, really don't care so long as the information that our kids are learning suits what they believe and want to be taught, even though it is a-historical.

This is why I have put out the challenge - review the changes - and point out in the changes themselves (and not "news" articles) where the problesm are.

I already have. The news articles have too. Their choices of wording are different, but the changes that will be made are nevertheless outlined in them. There is nothing that makes them inaccurate. They have outlined what they're going to change and what is inaccurate; I for one have spent most of my time here outlining what is inaccurate.

I have linked to the actual document of changes - and have asked 3 times in this thread where exactly people take issue.

And we have responded three times to where we are taking issue. Or at least I have anyway. And I have outlined three times how to correct the issue. Yet, it is only you who are oblivious to this. Everyone else sees the posts; why can't you?

So far - no one has dared touch that question.

On the contrary, we have. So perhaps you should touch on why the information is accurate. I mean, we've already refuted your claims about the Christian/religious founding of the United States and the major religion/beliefs of the Founding Fathers, but that still doesn't mean you can't try (and fail lol) at trying to point out why their changes to the Civil War history are "accurate".

Instead - we get "well the last version was ok" even though it had errors.

And we get utter obliviousness. You pretend not to see our arguments and the facts, pretend that we have no way to refute what you're saying, you trudge on, ignoring us even though we're damning your arguments by the keystroke. Furthermore, you have yet to outline what "errors" existed with the sections they decided to change. And you were refuted on your claim that the "United States isn't a democracy".

Is this one perfect? No -

No kidding? Where was your first clue?

I doubt anything can be -

Master Of The Obvious.

but for every "flaw" that it introduces, I am willing to bet I can match things it fixes to be factual.

Go for it. We've already shown why they aren't factual. So try your best. How much are you willing to put down? I'll wager a hundred.

Course - when no one takes the first challenge - I can't even make the second one! :rotfl2:

Perhaps you should reread, on my part, these posts lol, though I doubt you'll be any less blind to them:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1400700&postcount=128
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1401323&postcount=134

CaptainHaplo

05-23-10, 08:34 PM

Stealth Hunter...

I have reread both your posts - and your response.

For some reason - you don't seem to get what I am trying to point out to you. So far you have complained all about how these people are "rewriting" history, made claims based off their personal beliefs and how those beliefs are being forcefed to the kids in Texas, etc.

What you have failed to do - though you have continually skirted the issue - is go to the ACTUAL changes in the curriculum - and point out where there is an error or cause for concern.

Here - I will post the link for the changes AGAIN:

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643 (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643)

Or - if you want them direct - here ya go:

Kindergarten to 5th grade:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/ELEM_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/ELEM_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf)

6th to 8th grade:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/MS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/MS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf)

High School (9th to 12th Grade):
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/HS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf (http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/HS_TEKS_1stRdg.pdf)

So far all you have done is quote news articles, personal beliefs of people involved, etc. You have refused to actually look at the changes and point out where you have issues with those changes. At least - if you have reviewed the actual changes - you have done your absolute best to not answer the simple question - Where do you find in the changes themselves - cause for concern?

And by the way - some of this is NOT history - it is Social Studies - so the issues of "democracy" vs "republic" can be dealt with. Sorry - we are NOT a democracy at a federal level - otherwise 51% could tell the other 49% how to live. This is why we elect "representatives" and why the executive is not chosen by purely popular vote. If we were a democracy, stuff would just work on popular vote.

So you can try and lecture and point to different posts you have made, and continue to link to all kinds of websites that tell you what to think - but if your going to debate the issue of changes being bad - look at the changes themselves and find where you have a beef - instead of taking others word for it. So far, you have been unwilling to do so.

We can't have a discussion on specifics - when you refuse to get specific.

Stealth Hunter

05-23-10, 10:17 PM

I have reread both your posts - and your response.

Then why do you persist in saying that nobody has answered your questions? Because I did.

For some reason - you don't seem to get what I am trying to point out to you.

I get what you're trying (and failing) to say. You're saying that these changes are not inaccurate, and that you agree with them. That you have no problem with them. Your statements about the Founding Fathers' religions/beliefs and the supposed Christian/religious founding of America make that much obvious. At the same time, you're trying to say that nobody is able (or willing) to answer your questions about what parts of this whole affair we disagree with, even though I (and others here) have already pointed out what we disagree with and why we disagree with it; furthermore, what is accurate, and what it inaccurate.

So far you have complained

Complained? Hardly. Merely pointed out what's going on.

all about how these people are "rewriting" history,

Which, if you paid attention to what they were saying about the Founding Fathers, the basis on which the country was created, and the Civil War, you would have noticed already that what they are doing is revising what really happened. And I've already pointed out why. Steve has pointed out why. Ducimus has pointed out why. Tater has pointed out why. Skybird has pointed out why. Antikristuseke has pointed out why. Angus has pointed out why. Snestorm has pointed out why. But as to why this is so hard to see... well you'll have to answer me that. I can see it; why can't you?

made claims based off their personal beliefs

Quite. And indeed if you simply check their website to actually research how they believe, you'll see this is exactly what they're trying to do. They're admittedly there "to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena."

and how those beliefs are being forcefed to the kids in Texas, etc.

Is there something hard to understand about this? The textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. Can you make the connection on your own now, or do you want me to hold your hand and help you there?

What you have failed to do - though you have continually skirted the issue -

Lol "skirted". I've done no such thing. Nobody here has. Nobody but you, that is, as far as getting answers goes. You sure were quick to shut up about the fact that the United States was not founded on Christian/religious principles and that there does in fact exist a principle of Separation of Church and State after we all jumped onto you about making such erroneous claims about it, though... but anyway...

is go to the ACTUAL changes in the curriculum - and point out where there is an error or cause for concern.

Let me reiterate: the textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. If what the textbooks are teaching are changed, the "how" of the curriculum also changes. The material that is being taught as part of the curriculum is changing, and it's not accurate at all; ergo the curriculum is changed along with it to reflect such inaccurate material... can you make the connection on your own now, or do you want me to hold your hand and help you there?

So far all you have done is quote news articles,

What articles would that be? I haven't actually quoted any, so you wrong you say I have. Actually, the sources I've cited are a standard Texas high school history text book by Prentice Hall, a few legal websites about Supreme Court cases, the WallBuilders website to show how insane those people are, some websites on US history and how it does not correlate well with theology, and a Christian Ethics report showing how even they know what these people are trying to promote is BS.

personal beliefs of people involved,

And demonstrated how it is a valid logical connection to make. And indeed on their part self-admitted from their own website's "About Us" section. Not to say it's a wide-range movement from more than a few people, but the beliefs those few hold and the power they have in this case certainly demonstrated perfectly legitimately how its influencing their decisions. Purely related to logic, evidence, and psychology.

You have refused to actually look at the changes and point out where you have issues with those changes.

Actually I haven't. I've told you why already. But since you're going to continue this charade, I guess I'm going to have to hold your hand and walk you there like a little child. The United States was intended, as clarified by Madision, Jefferson, Paine, and indeed Washington in their writings and recorded statements to one another, among others (the former four being the most notable), to have religious and state affairs kept separate so as to avoid the possibility of liberty being curbed for the sake of possible theocratic elements entering into the system; as Wikipedia explains, the theological leanings of some 20 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence have been established- and the majority were either self-admitted Deists or self-admitted to have been strongly influenced by Deism; only 9 have been positively identified as Orthodox Christians (source: http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm), and the Civil War was not an armed rebellion (implying that it was merely just a small-scale disruption against the government to make a point) but an act of treason in which a completely new government was established that split the original Union in two (the same Union the Founding Fathers they're speaking about creating this country on the principles, according to them, of Christianity) which started the whole war that lasted for four years by storming Fort Sumter after bombarding it mercilessly resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers within that time period and a lasting impression on people today that still creates resentment and controversy when the issue is brought up. They want to teach that the founders were mostly Christians who created the country based upon Christian/religious principles and that the Civil War was not an act of treason on the part of the Confederacy and that it was merely an armed rebellion against the United States government, to "protect states rights" (the main issue of which that was in dispute during the election of 1860 being slavery and arguments for and against it; the Southern Dixiecrats were afraid it would be abolished by Lincoln and would thereby cripple their economy; there is a reason you know why the country became rich so quickly in its brief history up to that point).

At least - if you have reviewed the actual changes - you have done your absolute best to not answer the simple question -

Kind of like how you've done your absolute best to continue this game pretending I haven't answered where my concern lies and where the changes are, when I have and when others have.

Where do you find in the changes themselves - cause for concern?

Again, the textbooks teachers are required to use to educate the kids are being changed to reflect this BS (and quite frankly it is nothing less; it's not accurate at all). The curriculum the teachers have to follow mandates that they have to teach the kids about, including but not limited to, the Founding Fathers, the founding of the country, and the Civil War. If what the textbooks are teaching are changed, the "how" of the curriculum also changes. The material that is being taught as part of the curriculum is changing, and it's not accurate at all; ergo the curriculum is changed along with it to reflect such inaccurate material... this is the third time I've posted this in this post alone... I hope, I honestly do, that you can make the connection on your own now...

And by the way - some of this is NOT history - it is Social Studies -

Though the textbook changes are reflecting upon public school textbooks about history.

so the issues of "democracy" vs "republic" can be dealt with.

Not really sure what you mean by this since we have already dealt with it... but whatever.

Sorry - we are NOT a democracy at a federal level - otherwise 51% could tell the other 49% how to live.

I never claimed were were a democracy at a federal level lol... nobody but you has even stated anything remotely along those lines... all I pointed out was that the United States today is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. And listed off the reasons why.

This is why we elect "representatives" and why the executive is not chosen by purely popular vote.

The Constitution establishes the country as two things: a Republic (the people elect their Congressional members and their leader) and a Democracy (the people are free to voice their opinions and may be directly involved in the affairs of government via the voting/campaigning processes; it's true when Lincoln said "for the people, of the people, by the people"). So is it wrong to teach the United States was historically founded as a democracy? No, because originally it was, and the beliefs in democracy are maintained to this very day by not only the law but the people. The popular vote still decides the electoral vote; there's a reason why we base the number of representatives off the population of a state, you know, and still allow the citizens of the state to vote for both their representatives and their leaders to decide the electoral college outcome.

If we were a democracy, stuff would just work on popular vote.

You fail to understand much about this. Nobody is claiming the United States is a democracy lol. Though it is obvious to anybody who understands about how the country works that there exist elements of it within the system, just as there exist elements of Republicanism and Constitutionalism. This isn't hard. It really isn't.

So you can try and lecture and point to different posts you have made, and continue to link to all kinds of websites that tell you what to think - but if your going to debate the issue of changes being bad - look at the changes themselves and find where you have a beef - instead of taking others word for it. So far, you have been unwilling to do so.

Now I KNOW you're just being hard headed. We've already decimated your arguments here, but you just don't want to admit it. Like the issue that there DOES exist a barrier between church and state in our country- when you claimed the opposite was true. Sorry, but I'm not the one who's linking to websites telling me what to think. Actually, nobody here is. Oddly enough, neither are you. I'm doing what any sensible person does in a debate: CITING MY SOURCES. Furthermore, I have been more than willing to highlight what areas I have problems with and what areas are factually incorrect, and explain why it's important that the education system at least be correct in what it's teaching an entire generation of people in a state, nevermind how that applies to the entire country and all its individual states therein. It is YOU who have been unwilling to acknowledge that I have done so, instead deciding to play games with us and pretend like I'm not doing what you're asking when I have. Others have too. I'm not going to play games though; sorry.

We can't have a discussion on specifics - when you refuse to get specific.

We're not discussing "specifics" lol. You're tossing this out there like it actually means something in this debate, when it doesn't. It sounds really philosophical and good, but it doesn't have any relevance in this. I've pointed out the factual inaccuracies with the changes they've made to the textbooks and shown why and how it will fallback on the curriculum, nevermind how it will affect the students who have to learn it.

Furthermore, I have demonstrated why these people are by definition historical revisionists, and that I am not alone on this conclusion; that their own Christian peers agree with me as evidenced by the Christian Ethics report (i.e. my source... it's not telling me what to think lol... it's my source... you cite them in a debate, you know). Finally, I have shown the dangers they pose to education because of the power they hold in their respective school board districts and because of their self-admitted revisionist beliefs, evidenced by their website (which I also cited to show the similar psychology that exists amongst them, in addition to their core beliefs in spreading this kind of "education" en masse").

CaptainHaplo

05-24-10, 06:49 AM

Stealth Hunter.

You are bound and determined to NOT address the issues.

Show me - and everyone else - where in the actual curriculum it makes the claims your stating. Then we can deal with them on the question of accuracy or not. But instead - you continue to not go to the actual documents.

The issue of the Civil War and its causes. Slavery was a huge factor - I have said so before. However, it was NOT the only cause - States Rights issues were in fact a significant cause as well. To claim it was ONLY about slavery ignores historical fact. Let me quote myself when this issue has come up previously:
If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?

"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them, and left them in bondage where it could have set them free. Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain. Apparently any future President could simply revoke it. "The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html

Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war - and in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue. But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one. Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact? *If you doubt its fact - look at the following, which I will quote from my friend Platypus:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. " - Abraham Lincoln

http://www.abfition.com/abraham-linc...es-slavery.htm (http://www.abfition.com/abraham-lincoln/lincoln-quotes-slavery.htm)

As to whether the South considered Slavery the cause of the civil way, we can reference the individual declarations of the states.

If you read "Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" you will see that in South Carolina, secession was based on slavery as well as State Sovereignty.

“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” mentions slavery but puts more emphasis on State Sovereignty.

As does “Georgia Declaration of Secession”

As does “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

Florida, Alabama,Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky all had declarations of independence that did not mention slavery at all, but listed State Sovereignty.

Virginia, always being different, makes an oblique reference of solidarity with the other Southern States concerning Slavery but also stated State Sovereignty as one of the justifications of its secession.

So to tally up the score

5 states list slavery as one of the justifications of secession
8 states do not list slavery as one of the justifications of secession.

However all of them mention State Sovereignty as one of the justifications for secession.

So just by reading the individual state’s declarations of independence, it seems that the primary justification for secession was State Sovereignty

According to you - the states referenced State Sovereignty should NOT be taught - even though a review of history shows it was an issue. So your arguing AGAINST teaching fact now. Why? Given that the "trianglular trade" is going to allow an even further in depth study of slavery and its economic impact (which is why it was an issue for the Civil War) - you seem unhappy that any other data except one thing be taught. And here I was basing my discussion with you on the premise that you wanted fact to be taught - not a biased viewpoint you hold. I still say let the kids have the facts and let them determine their own views from them.

Also - you have YET to show anywhere in the changes that the curriculum now states that the country was founded by a bunch Bible thumping believers - yet you claim it does so. Instead of going "Look what they want to teach the kids", you continue to go to outside sources which are not what the kids are being taught. Maybe you just want to pull down anything on the internet you disagree with - after all - the kids might see it, right? I mean - if you can't deal with the curriculum itself - and point out IN IT where there are flaws - but instead want to rant about what other people's beliefs on websites... .well... I guess you just want to "protect" the children.

Though the textbook changes are reflecting upon public school textbooks about history.

Yea buddy - you really know what your talking about don't you Stealth Hunter? Lets look at the actual documents shall we? Since your statement proves you have not done so.

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter A, Elementary

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113,
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter B, Middle School

Proposed Revisions to 19 TAC Chapter 113, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Social Studies, Subchapter C, High Schooland
19 TAC Chapter 118, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits,
Subchapter A, High School

Funny - I see "Social Studies" in each one of those titles. Social Studies and history go hand in hand - and it does deal with standards on BOTH - but the fact you have not looked at the actual documents (as made apparent in your claim) show that you continue to take other sources at their word without actually looking at this for yourself.

See I can say that in the elementary changes I might have an issue with one set of changes - and point to them like this:

Section 113.15

Continual references to "Native American" are replaced with "American Indian".

I see some reasoning for making this change, but also see reasons against it. That is what I am talking about - locating an issue within the documents themselves and bringing them up. You can't - or won't. Its either because you can't find the things your griping about - or the reality that the changes reflect history is unacceptable to you - in which case history is unacceptable and you would choose to rewrite it. Given you can't be chuffed enough to actually read the documents (its all about history - yea buddy!) and your continuation of using anything but said documents, demonstrate that it is likely a conglomeration of the two factors.

tater

05-24-10, 08:57 AM

BTW, while I abhor curricula that are pushed by religious fundamentalists (regardless of flavor), I also abhor political indoctrination in curricula of any sort.

As I said above, all history is biased. All.

My brother in law gave me a history on the golden age of piracy, for example. I didn't finish the first chapter as the author's modern political bias was evident in the first few pages. The same is true of any history you read, albeit usually it is more subtle.

If the state pays for texts, then the taxpayers—through their elected representatives—have a right to vet them politically. The argument WRT Texas is that TX exercises much power because unlike other States, they buy all public school texts at the State level. So TX decides on certain content, and that's what gets published because TX is a big sale. My argument to that is, tough. If NY doesn't like it, they can buy for the whole State and counterbalance TX. The market is open, I don't see other states compelled.

Course my kids go to private school anyway, and if they want history, my library is pretty decent (even if it is heavily weighted towards military history).

Snestorm

05-24-10, 08:08 PM

What would be wrong (if anything), with each school district choosing their own textbooks. Thus returning, as I think it should be, local control.

antikristuseke

05-24-10, 08:16 PM

That would cause a huge cluster**** in the education system.

Platapus

05-24-10, 08:22 PM

But with the advent of digital publishing, school systems are becoming less dependent on large publishing houses for their text books.

I don't think it is too unrealistic that in the future, each school district will be able to obtain their own version of text books.

I can easily foresee the time when students are issued an E-reader for all their texts.

Of course E-readers for school kids would be a terrible thing. How can you ask that cute girl if you can carry her books for her, when they can all be stored on a flash drive? :wah::wah::wah:

Sailor Steve

05-24-10, 08:31 PM

Interesting diversion here:

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue - but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one. It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history. What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

"Or even the largest one"? We just had that discussion, and it's pretty much a given that throughout The South 'The Cause' is still alive, and they won't ever admit it.

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue. But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one. Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact?
Not me. I take exception to teaching that slavery was a minor issue. You'll have to read my post in the 'Confederate's Day' thread or whatever it was - I'm not going to go through all that again here. Slavery was the overriding and overwhelming cause of secession, and secession is what the war was fought over. And that's the real fact, deny it as you may.

At the same time you accuse others of not facing the truth, you seem to be arguing for a very biased picture of history.

tater

05-24-10, 08:55 PM

Not the slavery nonsense again. Slavery was THE issue. No slavery, no Civil War—PERIOD. There might well have been other reasons—all of them combined were noise compared to slavery.

Lincoln elected, South secedes under the fear northern (and Republican) control would outlaw the practice.

There is no possible scenario where the Civil War happens without slavery being involved.

CaptainHaplo

05-24-10, 09:00 PM

Steve - I have read your posts in the other thread - and you have very good arguements.

The key here is no one is saying slavery was a "minor" issue. Slavery was the engine behind the Southern economy. The economic concerns led directly to the decisions that meant Secession. Secession itself (as well as slavery) was a question of states rights at the time. No one is seperating them. No one is saying that they are not inter-related.

The problem is you jump at the fact that now slavery isn't the ONLY issue discussed, and somehow turn that into it being "minor" - which is not the case. Again - like with Stealth Hunter - look at the changes made. Show where it now has relegated slavery to be a "minor" issue. It hasn't. The discussion has simply been broadened to include other historical concerns as well.

Stealth Hunter

05-24-10, 09:26 PM

You are bound and determined to NOT address the issues.

Do you guys think I should continue feeding the troll? I mean, even if he can't see it, the rest of you can see that I am in fact answering him and I am making points to counter his, even though he keeps pretending I'm not.

Show me - and everyone else - where in the actual curriculum it makes the claims your stating.

I never said it was a revision to the act wording of the curriculum lol. Merely that the changes to the textbooks, the tools the teachers have to use to teach the kids, the blood that keeps the curriculum alive, will fall back and affect the actual curriculum- as in how effective it is and how these things shall be taught. I've already explained why in the post above.

Then we can deal with them on the question of accuracy or not. But instead - you continue to not go to the actual documents.

And you continue to play the role of Captain Clueless, continuing the charade of "You're not answering my questions; I'm going to continue pretending that you're dodging the issues even when you're not; you can't make me stop! Hahaha!" Very childish, comparable to a kid covering his ears and making noise to keep from hearing what he doesn't want to hear.

The issue of the Civil War and its causes. Slavery was a huge factor - I have said so before. However, it was NOT the only cause - States Rights issues were in fact a significant cause as well.

And the States' Rights issue was over what? Oh yeah- that's right: slavery. We've covered this before. The Southern states were concerned that the men in Washington would decide to abolish slavery, which would thereby cripple their economy. They argued that it was perfectly within their rights as a part of the Union to own and sell slave laborers. Lincoln, who was known for his outspoken criticism of slavery, worried them greatly over this when he was elected in 1860. Stephen A. Douglas, the main man who was running against Lincoln along with John Bell and John C. Breckinridge, while not fond of slavery was still in favor of protecting the Southern states' rights to keep slaves, because he knew that it would damage the economy if this free source of labor were to be abolished and permanently outlawed. Still, they knew that their best chances were with Breckinridge, who was totally supportive of the system- hence why virtually all the southern states and territories voted for him. While he was ahead of everyone except Lincoln on the electoral vote, he was far behind Douglas on the popular vote.

They were panicked almost the second his victory was announced that they would see the trade abolished on his watch. Hence the main reason for succession: States' Rights on the issue of slavery, which caused them to question all of their rights as territories of the Union. This is basic history here, nothing complex or difficult to understand...

To claim it was ONLY about slavery ignores historical fact.

You keep saying it ignores historical fact in an attempt to lend some seeming credency through tone to your statements. If you open any historical book or read any historical webpage on this subject, you will find that the main reason the Southern states seceded from the Union was because Lincoln won, and because they were afraid he would abolish the slave trade and cripple their economy by eliminating their source of free, plentiful labor. The main issue of the Election of 1860 was States' Rights on the issue of slavery, not only within states but within territories. I suggest you study this before you open your mouth on it.

http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundElection.html (http://www.tulane.edu/%7Elatner/Background/BackgroundElection.html)

Let me quote myself when this issue has come up previously:

Be my guest.

If the issue of Slavery was the cause of the civil war - then why did the North continue to allow slavery?

This is actually untrue. The North did not allow slavery at the time of the American Civil War. At least, the states that fought for the North and remained part of the Union didn't. As of 1789, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had abolished slavery within their borders.

By 1799, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire had joined the list of free states.

By 1800, the Indiana Territory and Northwest Territories were constituted as free territories.

By 1861, the year the Civil War began, slavery had also been abolished in Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and California- and finally Kansas (even though it was a border debate state). The Washington, Nebraska, and "Unorganized" Territories were also free territories where slavery did not exist. All other remaining northern states, New Jersey, Delaware Maryland, etc., by this time had done so as well.

These were state/territory decisions that were made by their respective state/territory governments. They were ratified only on a state level. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments added on to the Constitution federally abolished slavery permanently. All the Emancipation Proclamation was there to do was to say that this would be done by the federal government in the South once the CSA was defeated. And it was. The slaves were freed in the South. The document itself is what led to the establishment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Basic high school American history here...

Again, before you open your mouth, make sure you know what it is you're talking about:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery

It's a video series, so you won't have to do any reading. And I know how hard reading can be on here. If you need any more help, let us (especially me know). Kthnx.

"On New Year's Day, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation.

Yep.

Contrary to what its title suggests, however, the presidential edict did not immediately free a single slave. It "freed" only slaves who were under Confederate control, and explicitly exempted slaves in Union-controlled territories, including federal-occupied areas of the Confederacy, West Virginia, and the four slave-holding states that remained in the Union.

Again, this is because the states that remained in the Union had already abolished slavery via state legislative acts. It wasn't an issue that needed immediate federal addressing in them, precisely why the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments didn't come along until after all this had gone on to federally abolish slavery, to ensure a state could never try to revoke its decision or future states admitted could never have a different stance from the other states within the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation is what led to these amendments after the Civil War. The Proclamation itself was just an executive order; Congress had not taken any official decisions on the nation issue of slavery up until the passage by them of the aforementioned amendments.

The Proclamation, Secretary Seward wryly commented, emancipated slaves where it could not reach them,

To show the Southern states that, when they were defeated, and it was a certainty that they eventually would be, even if it took years and years, they were going to have to pay their workers like everybody else instead of using slaves to do the work for them on plantations and the like. That's one of the main reasons he presented it not only to the slaves but to the CSA's government members. It let the slaves know what would happen in the end; it let them know they would be freed in and at the end of it all. But the freedom would have to come after the Confederates had been defeated. And then there's also the previously mentioned reason towards the CSA's government. Moving on.

and left them in bondage where it could have set them free.

They were already free in the states that remained in the Union though lol. How is it that you did not know this before hand? What are they teaching you in school today? New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, Iowa, Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc. had all already abolished slavery on a state level in their borders. There was no logical reason to issue such an executive order to them therefore... it wasn't an issue. There needed to be laws enacted federally to prevent slavery, but that's a completely different historical talk to be had.

Moreover, because it was issued as a war measure, the Proclamation's long-term validity was uncertain.

Not really. It was pretty much guaranteed Lincoln would survive the war so it would outlast the whole bloody affair. And indeed he did. He wasn't assassinated (or at least didn't actually die) until April 15, 1865. The war ended on six days earlier.

Apparently any future President could simply revoke it.

You can do that with any executive order. But that's the price you pay for living in a country using this kind of system of checks and balances and division of power between branches. He did the most he could do; and he did quite well.

"The popular picture of Lincoln using a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves is ludicrously false," historian Allan Nevins has noted."

He's right. Seriously, nobody here is disagreeing with this. Nobody even teaches that he used "a stroke of the pen to lift the shackles from the limbs of four million slaves". And precisely why nobody here before has even made such an outlandish claim.

Slaves were owned in the North during the civil war -

Actually no. Citizens residing in the Northern states where their respective state legislatures had already abolished it were not allowed to own slaves. During the Civil War, nobody living in one of these states owned slaves either. Census records going up to 1860 show that there were escaped slaves living in the Northern states, hence they were listed as "slaves" on it. Some 87,000 escaped successfully just into Maryland; Delaware had 1,700 runaways living in it; the Nebraska Territory only 18.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/ (http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Eajac/)

And in fact the "hero" of the Civil War - Ulysses S. Grant - Union Military leader at the end of the war

Actually no. That was Grant's father-in-law, Colonel Frederick Dent. He worked on the Dent Farm, after he married Julia, in the 1850s for a time- which was located near St. Louis, Missouri, a state where slavery had not officially been abolished by the state legislature (it was a state that was divided about the issue, and indeed about which side to take during the actual coming war). He had only one slave put under his care whilst he worked there, who was later taken back by Colonel Dent when Grant left to go to Illinois to work in a tannery. Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime. Grant himself opposed slavery. He openly said he did during the election of 1860. And during the Reconstruction Era, he had an amazing track record for fighting for civil rights for freed slaves given the times.

http://www.empirenet.com/~ulysses/ (http://www.empirenet.com/%7Eulysses/)

as well as President after Lincoln and Jackson owned slaves.

Lincoln and Jackson were years and years apart from one another on their presidential terms. What are you talking about?

The fact is that slavery WAS an issue -

The defining issue. It's what led to the whole fight over States' Rights, the ONLY right in question being the right to own and sell slaves.

but it was not by any means the only one - or even the largest one.

Really, it was. And I've already demonstrated why. What the States' Rights argument was about (slavery), what the anti-abolitionist attitude was about (slavery), what the main issue of the election of 1860 was about (slavery), and why the CSA was established and so many Southern states seceded from the Union to join the CSA (because the issue of States' Rights was drawn into question because of the abolitionist attitude towards, that's right, slavery was being brought up as an issue for the president and Congress to begin considering more seriously, because the South's economy was so dependent on the work of slaves).

It has been portrayed as such because morally - it is an abhorrent practice, and the victor gets to write the history.

Or because, you know, that's how it actually happened... again, you really need to do some reading about reasons WHY the war began and WHY slavery was such a big issue during the election of 1860.

What better causus belli for later generations to look at than a vile acceptance of such practices?

It's a conspiracy!:eek:

Note there is not claim that slavery was not an issue.

Just claims that slavery was not one of the biggest influencing issues behind it all, when really it was. hat the States' Rights argument was about (slavery), what the anti-abolitionist attitude was about (slavery), what the main issue of the election of 1860 was about (slavery), and why the CSA was established and so many Southern states seceded from the Union to join the CSA (because the issue of States' Rights was drawn into question because of the abolitionist attitude towards, that's right, slavery was being brought up as an issue for the president and Congress to begin considering more seriously, because the South's economy was so dependent on the work of slaves).

But the reality is that there were more issues than just the one.

Starting with the issue of slavery, leading to States' Rights being questioned over slavery, leading to the main issue of the election of 1860 being over slavery and abolition of it, leading to th- you see where this is going. This is the third time I've had to explain it to you in this post alone. It started with the issue of slavery being called into question in politics during the 1850s, from there on slavery was just the connecting issue between each and every one of these major events in United States history. This isn't some kind of nonexistent claptrap, it's historical fact.

Yet you take exception to teaching that historical fact?

I take exception to downplaying its role in the Civil War. Their original statement said that it was an issue of States' Rights. Not entirely true. It was about States' Rights over SLAVERY. Not States' Rights in general compared to the federal government's rights/powers, it was over the issue of the trading and ownership of slaves in the United States. The reasons why the South objected to abolishing it or even admitting there was a serious ethical problem I have already posted: because their economy was dependent on slave labor, and they didn't want to even so much as RISK losing it- because it would cripple their economy. And indeed, it did in the end during the Reconstruction Era on well into the 20th century.

*If you doubt its fact - look at the following, which I will quote from my friend Platypus:

He is incorrect on several points, including Missouri- which did not actually secede from the Union; it was divided on what side to take, as was it on the issue of slavery (the southern counties mostly took the side of the Confederates, the northern ones mostly took the side of the Union, probably because of their border with Iowa and Illinois- states which had already abolished slavery in their state legislatures). Although, I'm not debating what he's debating; I'm merely debating the issues that LED up to the Civil War and succession. He's trying to talk about what justifications the states gave for their secession from the Union.

According to you - the states referenced State Sovereignty should NOT be taught - even though a review of history shows it was an issue.

I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. You have quite a bad habit of that. But on, the current textbooks teach that State Sovereignty was an issue... because State Sovereignty is an issue that pertains as a subdivision of States' Rights. And the issue of States' Rights arose in the first place because the issue of whether or not states should have the right to allow slaves to be owned/traded arose beforehand in the 1850s, in the beginning of the Abolitionist Movement when it first made its real entrance into politics.

So your arguing AGAINST teaching fact now.

Actually, I'm not. I'm arguing about going back to the old things the textbooks said, because this issue was originally presented factually and clearly; now, they've gotten it jumbled up into the realm of inaccuracy by confusing what was the real reoccurring issue behind each of these events. The events remain separate, that much is true, so it's no inaccurate in that sense, but in the sense they're presenting the history in an incomplete format now (by not teaching that the debate over slavery was the connecting issue between each event)- inaccurate towards the Civil War because of their instigation that it was not an act of treason, but rather an "armed rebellion" against the government (insinuating it was a small and negligible event, when that's simply not the case). And I've already explained why this is the case in my previous post.

Given that the "trianglular trade" is going to allow an even further in depth study of slavery and its economic impact (which is why it was an issue for the Civil War) - you seem unhappy that any other data except one thing be taught.

How exactly will changing what the name of the trade is called make the study any more in depth than it previously was as you are claiming? It really doesn't, and that's all they've done is change the name. Schools study the Atlantic Slave Trade under this name because that's precisely what the primary export/import was: slaves. From Africa and South, Central America and the Caribbean (though it later became mostly just Africans after the natives from the Americas they were originally losing literally disappeared because of mass death from smallpox, measles, and other European diseases). There were two separate markets to it: slaves and goods. They don't just study they Atlantic Slave Trade, they also study the Transatlantic Trade- which is the one that pertains specifically to goods being traded, not the people.

And here I was basing my discussion with you on the premise that you wanted fact to be taught -

That makes two of us.

not a biased viewpoint you hold.

This is the first time either one of us has accused the either of bias. I haven't accused you of bias. So tell me, what bias exactly do I hold? There's got to be some kind of name to describe it. What exactly are my motives lol?

I still say let the kids have the facts and let them determine their own views from them.

As do I, my dear boy, as do I.

Also - you have YET to show anywhere in the changes that the curriculum now states that the country was founded by a bunch Bible thumping believers - yet you claim it does so.

Actually, I don't claim that about the CURRICULUM; merely what the curriculum runs around- the tools the students and teachers have to use to learn/teach respectively: the textbooks, and that this will have fallout repercussions on the curriculum- not that the actual curriculum is being changed (as in the documents that dictate what must be taught by the teachers).

With that said, the proposed changes to the textbooks do portray the Founding Fathers in the light of being believers in the religion of Christianity, when, as I have already explained, the majority were not. Jefferson, an outspoken critic of religion, is being removed from the chapter on the foundations which led to the ideas which made the country what it is today and replaced by Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin; for whatever reason, they're keeping Voltaire, John Locke, Rene Descartes, and Immanuel Kant in the same chapter even though they have more to do with the foundation and solidification of the Enlightenment Era than the subdivision of the Intellectualism Movement.

Instead of going "Look what they want to teach the kids", you continue to go to outside sources which are not what the kids are being taught.

Also known as primary sources. You should look into them sometime. If the kids are being taught accurate information to begin with, which the are, the information you get off Encyclopedia Britannica or the United States Supreme Court website or any other website like these examples will match up to what the textbooks say. And they do, when you make a comparison with what the current books say (not the ones they've amended and are getting ready to print) to what such primary sources say.

Though, if you really are that concerned about eliminating non-existent bias as you claim to be, you should be a proponent in favor of teaching the kids via using multiple primary sources rather than manipulative textbooks, although the information in the books was accurate albeit brief before this whole affair.

Maybe you just want to pull down anything on the internet you disagree with

Funny. I could apply that exact same argument to you. No indeed everybody else who argues like this on the Internet. Disagreement implies opinion, however. This is not a fight of opinion over what's going into the textbooks; it's a matter of what is factual that is/should be put into them and what is not factual that isn't/should not be put into them.

after all - the kids might see it, right?

Right, it's all part of my dastardly scheme to destroy the textbooks of the state of Texas... mind control and manipulation... lol.

I mean - if you can't deal with the curriculum itself

Even though the actual curriculum I haven't been going on about so much as the actual textbooks that are a major pillar in the actual teaching/learning process.

- and point out IN IT where there are flaws -

Which I already have by addressing the problems with the books and brief chapters they have within them, and how that has fallout impacts on the curriculum (the teaching/learning process). Still oblivious as hell I see.

but instead want to rant about what other people's beliefs on websites...

In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing two things: arguing about the problems with the change they're making in the textbooks, and arguing about the problems with actually allowing these people to serve on the school board to promote such factual inaccuracies about United States history, ESPECIALLY about the Founding Fathers.

.well... I guess you just want to "protect" the children.

Well hey you said it man; I never said I wanted to "protect" the children- merely that I wanted inaccuracies to be rendered accurate once again as they were in the first place.

Yea buddy - you really know what your talking about don't you Stealth Hunter? Lets look at the actual documents shall we? Since your statement proves you have not done so.

Already have, pal. But keep it up with the impotent attitude. You're really making yourself look good here...

Funny - I see "Social Studies" in each one of those titles.

Nothing funny about it. At least, not to me.

Social Studies and history go hand in hand -

Master Of The Obvious. Where did I say they didn't? I didn't. But history is a BRANCH of Social Studies; Social Studies merely refers to a wide range of classes (political science, sociology, economics, religion, history, geography, culture, civics, etc.), each of which breaks down into even more subdivisions (Recent American History, World History, Business Economics, Theological Studies, World Cultures & Geography- a single class BTW, etc.). In each class, you receive a specific book tailored to that specific class' needs. The changes these school board members have agreed to pass will affect only the history classes... you don't get a Recent American History textbook if you taking a civics or economics class; the changes are geared towards American history, but certainly will reflect upon World History in relation to the removal of Jefferson as a member of the Intellectualism Movement- being replaced with John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas.

and it does deal with standards on BOTH -

As a branch of Social Studies? Yes. Strictly throughout Social Studies? No. Again, Social Studies has a bunch of different fields, not just all relating to history but also religion, economics, civics, etc.

but the fact you have not looked at the actual documents (as made apparent in your claim) show that you continue to take other sources at their word without actually looking at this for yourself.

How does not looking at the documents about Social Studies (which I have, for the record) do anything to discredit my original argument about the inaccuracy of the changes being made to the historical textbooks to begin with? Because really it's not doing anything more than changing the subject...

See I can say that in the elementary changes I might have an issue with one set of changes - and point to them like this:

Section 113.15

Continual references to "Native American" are replaced with "American Indian".

American Indian referring to individual Indian groups from North America (as the term is coined for them). By just saying "Native American", it is not specific, ergo can refer to natives from anywhere in the continent chain- indeed the Caribbean. Speaking in terms of descriptions and admissibility, there's really nothing wrong with it. As far as opinions go, on whether or not you're offended, state your annoyances as you please.

I see some reasoning for making this change, but also see reasons against it.

Out of curiosity, what reasons?

That is what I am talking about - locating an issue within the documents themselves and bringing them up.

Within the curriculum... which is not what I'm debating. Merely the changes to the textbooks, which will have a fallout effect on the actual curriculum by changing the experience endured under this particular teaching/learning process.

You can't - or won't.

http://xbradtc.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/facepalm.jpg

Its either because you can't find the things your griping about -

Which have nothing to do about the actual curriculum, merely what the chapters in the textbooks will actually say.

or the reality that the changes reflect history is unacceptable to you -

Inaccuracy is unacceptable, especially when there's no reason for it to be inaccurate. Furthermore, when it's a matter of education that we're talking about.

in which case history is unacceptable

Only warped revised histories, mate.

and you would choose to rewrite it.

Or just right it back to what it was, when it was right before these people got a hold of it.

Given you can't be chuffed enough to actually read the documents

Which, as I've pointed out, I have, and, as I've also pointed out, this argument about the curriculum is sidetracking from the actual historical debate taking place. If we prove that their history is inaccurate that they're going to be putting in the textbooks, which we have, we prove then that they are not competent to serve as governing members of the school board, and that they have too much power in a position they are not cut out to fill. Furthermore, that the changes they have made should be revoked and the text restored to what it originally was.

(its all about history - yea buddy!)

Indeed. But have you anything more to say on the whole issue of Separation of Church and State and the fact that the United States was not founded on a religion/belief, or are you admitting defeat now? I really am curious to know where you stand now after so many here have corrected you.

and your continuation of using anything but said documents, demonstrate that it is likely a conglomeration of the two factors.

Or perhaps that I'm not willing to sidetrack from the original topic: that the revisions to the history books they are making are, in the first place, inaccurate- ergo their entire positions on the matter invalid and the entire school system in jeopardy because of these incompetents are not cut out to hold a position of this kind of power in the education system, in which case they should be removed and the changes they've made revoked. Which, given that this has already been done by myself and others here, means that really there's nothing to continue arguing about. But if you really want to, I'm game.

CaptainHaplo

05-24-10, 10:27 PM

Do you guys think I should continue feeding the troll? While I take offense to being called a troll - I did - mistakenly - accuse you of bias, so I will let it go.

I see now where your coming from - and though I disagree, one statement finally made clear that we have been in dispute over 2 seperate things.

I never said it was a revision to the act wording of the curriculum lol. Merely that the changes to the textbooks, the tools the teachers have to use to teach the kids, the blood that keeps the curriculum alive, will fall back and affect the actual curriculum- as in how effective it is and how these things shall be taught.

Ok this is where we were on different pages. My whole thing was you were complaining about the changes to the curriculum - when in fact your more concerned with the textbooks themselves. Now however is a good time to point out that the "religious nuts" (my term - not yours) that everyone is so upset by that are making these curriculum changes - are not the ones that get to write the textbooks. So until we see the textbooks that are being written to accomodate the curricullum you now admit to not having a problem with - there isn't much point in being concerned. So its pretty much a non-issue.

During the Civil War, nobody living in one of these states owned slaves either. Census records going up to 1860 show that there were escaped slaves living in the Northern states, hence they were listed as "slaves" on it.

First time I have heard that explanation - will check into it.

Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime.

Actually - your in error here. Grant did in fact own one slave that he acquired from Dent. He freed that slave within one year , but he did in fact own one.

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html (http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html)

How exactly will changing what the name of the trade is called make the study any more in depth than it previously was as you are claiming?

I will let a teacher who deals with the subject explain it better than I can. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1396821&postcount=55 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1396821&postcount=55)

Out of curiosity, what reasons?

My issue with the term "native american" is that words have specific meaning. Native - one born in a location specified. American - the place specified. Thus - a native american is anyone born in america. During the times in question - alot of "non-indian" folks met the technical definition of native american. A large portion of the kids getting taught this stuff meet that definition. Using the term is incorrect - language wise. If they wanted to be specific, then they should keep it as either American Indian - or detail the specific subset of Indians.

And yes - I am one of those real pains when it comes to stuff like that - I even answered the census as marking "other" and writing in Native American. I was born in Georgia, after all!

Or perhaps that I'm not willing to sidetrack from the original topic: that the revisions to the history books they are making are, in the first place, inaccurate

Wait a minute - "they" are not making changes to the history books - they are setting up a curriculum - that you stated you didn't have specific issues with. Yet your complaining about the books that a company (not the people on the Texas Board of Education) is going to write - when we havent even seen what they include - because they are not written yet. So call me confused - but your saying you don't have a problem with what the books are going to be based off of (the curriculum) - and the books aren't written yet - but these incompetents are not cut out to hold a position of this kind of power in the education system, in which case they should be removed and the changes they've made revoked.

So if you don't have a problem with the curriculum itself - why should they be removed and the changes revoked - unless you want to do it just on the basis that you disagree with their personal philosophy and beliefs.

I mean seriously - if your going to be upset over the books that will be used to teach - shouldn't you at least see the books first before you judge them? Or is that not necessary because you have a preconcieved notion already about what they will contain - even though they are not created by the people you call incompetent (though they were competent enough to get elected - but then again - so was the president... :stare:) and the books are not yet even written.

Seems your worried about a lot of stuff that isn't even real......

Sailor Steve

05-24-10, 10:32 PM

The problem is you jump at the fact that now slavery isn't the ONLY issue discussed, and somehow turn that into it being "minor" - which is not the case.
Exactly what part of "Or even the largest one" did you miss? Maybe I've just had too many years of Southern apologists denying that slavery had anything to do with the war. This certainly looks like a step in that direction.

Again - like with Stealth Hunter - look at the changes made. Show where it now has relegated slavery to be a "minor" issue. It hasn't. The discussion has simply been broadened to include other historical concerns as well.
It most definitely has, and your attempts to hide it are more than a little frightening.

Also you keep harping on the "democracy vs republic" thing, which is very minor. So you have a group of people who in their own documents proclaim that they have to bring the country back to its Christian roots, but the fact that they don't say that in the curriculum plan means they're not really trying to do that. Do you think anyone who feels the need to control people comes right out and says it. The fact that they believe that should be enough to make anyone sit up and take notice. This thing is scary, and you want to justify it.

CaptainHaplo

05-24-10, 10:47 PM

Steve - that was a repost of our civil war discussion - and I would think that my post above to you makes it clear that I have revised that opinion - in part due to our discussion on the matter.

Slavery was an integral part of the causes of the war. Slavery ties to the economy, which the economic concerns are what propelled the decisions that led to Secession - and thus the war. So its tied in rather heavily, there is no doubt. However, that being said, it does not mean that it was the ONLY issue. There were distinctly other economic issues at work - primarily the north's desire to gain access and ownership of southern resources, the political push of keeping the federal system in place at the costs of states rights (check out the Constitutional Union party), etc. Secession itself - the right to secede - is in fact a states rights issue - and had the states not insisted on exercising that right, the war would not have occured - slavery or not. If they don't try and secede - uhm - who fights who? So to those that claim it was ONLY about slavery, how could the right of a state to secede not been an issue?

Speaking of slavery being made a minor issue:
It most definitely has
Where? I keep hearing all these accusations - but so far no one has actually shown where the changes do all these horrible things people say they do.

So you have a group of people who in their own documents proclaim that they have to bring the country back to its Christian roots, but the fact that they don't say that in the curriculum plan means they're not really trying to do that. Do you think anyone who feels the need to control people comes right out and says it. The fact that they believe that should be enough to make anyone sit up and take notice.
And I get accused of jumping to conclusions/wearing tin foil hats....

This thing is scary, and you want to justify it.
Justify it? I don't have to justify it. They got elected by the people (at least, I assume they did - or are they appointed?) - and they are tasked with a duty. They did that as they saw fit given the positions they hold as public servants. I don't have to justify their actions any more than an Obama supporter has to justify the actions of the president. I don't like alot of his actions - but for those that don't like this - well - better hope your in texas so you can vote these people out if you want - otherwise - you have to accept the fact that they have the legal right to do it - whether you like it or not. Just like the President has the right to go back on his word (yet again) regarding emergency funding requests, among other things. Its the way the system works, and thus it doesn't need justification. I simply was looking to find out where people really had an issue, and so far, it seems to be that they read something in some news article and take it as gospel, instead of looking at the changes and deciding for themselves.

tater

05-24-10, 11:53 PM

The Civil War was not about "State's Rights." It was about the right of States to own human beings. That's the "right" the South wanted to protect. It was not some abstraction.

No slavery —> no secession —> no civil war.

I'm a conservative, I favor distributed power (State's rights), but trying to paint the Civil War as a State's Rights issue at that time is absurd. YOu can make a modern argument that they should have been allowed to quit the US, I'm open to that abstraction, but at the time, the right they were protecting was the right to own people.

Snestorm

05-25-10, 01:35 AM

USA's Civil War was caused by two issues.
1: Slavery.
2: Tarrifs.
It was the aristicrats of the south that turned it into a "states rights" issue.
Had they not, they would have been unable to raise an army from the ranks of poor southerners. Exploitatable labor importation, then and now, decreases the earning potential of the established poor populations.

The north also had to keep the focus on "preserving the union".
Following Lincoln's Emmancipation Provlamation, which made the abolishment of slavery the main issue, there were draft riots in New York, to which federal troops had to be sent.

It was the same class of people then that imported slaves, as those today that favor mass exploitable immigration. They have no loyalty to anyone or anything, but their own wealth and power. Funny how they turn the word "racist" on anyone who tries to stand in their way.

Sailor Steve

05-25-10, 10:04 AM

2: Tarrifs.
Please show any contemprary documentation that would indicate that tarrifs had anything to do with either secession or the war itself.

CaptainHaplo

05-25-10, 07:01 PM

Oh the irony......

Please show any contemprary documentation that would indicate that tarrifs had anything to do with either secession or the war itself.

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:

Where? I keep hearing all these accusations - but so far no one has actually shown where the changes do all these horrible things people say they do.

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

There were many reasons for a Civil War to happen in America, and political issues and disagreements began soon after the American Revolution ended in 1782. Between the years 1800 and 1860, arguments between the North and South grew more intense. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed specifically at them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Southern exporters sometimes had to pay higher amounts for shipping their goods overseas because of the distance from southern ports and sometimes pay unequal tariffs imposed by a foreign country on some of their goods. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several "panics", including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.

Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.

As the nation grew in size, so did the opportunities for expansion westward. Many felt that slavery should be allowed in the new territories such as Kansas and Missouri, while others were set against it. This led to "bleeding Kansas", a bitter war that pitted neighbor against neighbor. In 1859, a radical abolitionist from Kansas named John Brown raided the Federal armory at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, in the hopes of supplying weapons to an army of slaves that would revolt against their southern masters. A number of people were taken hostage and several killed, among them the mayor of Harpers Ferry. Brown was cornered with several of his followers in a fire engine house, first by Virginia militia and then by Federal troops sent to arrest him and his raiders. These troops, commanded by Colonel Robert E. Lee, stormed the building and captured Brown and several of his men. Brown was tried for his crimes, found guilty, and hung in Charlestown. Though John Brown's raid had failed, it fueled the passions of northern abolitionists who made him a martyr. It was reported that bells tolled in sympathy to John Brown in northern cities on the day he was executed. This inflamed passions in the South where southern leaders used the incident as another reminder how little the South's interests were represented in Federal law, labeled as sympathetic to runaways and anti-slavery organizations.

The debate became very bitter. Southern politicians outwardly charged that their voices were not being heard in congress. Some Southern states wanted to secede, or break away from the United States of America and govern themselves. Emotions reached a fever pitch when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860. He was a member of the Republican Party and vowed to keep the country united and the new western territories free from slavery. Many Southerners, who were Democrats, were afraid that Lincoln was not sympathetic to their way of life and would not treat them fairly. The growing strength of the Republican Party, viewed by many as the party friendly to abolitionists and northern businessmen, and the election of the party's candidate was the last straw. Southern governors and political leaders called for state referendums to consider articles of secession. South Carolina was the first state to officially secede from the United States soon after the election and they were followed by six other Southern states. These states joined together and formed a new nation which they named the Confederate States of America. They elected Jefferson Davis, a Democratic senator and champion of states rights from Mississippi, as the first president.

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group - you better be sitting down. This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm (http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm)

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states....

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?

Sure its not detailed - so if you want more info check out the "Tariff of Abomination" and following tariffs - you will find out how much other economic pressure was applied from north to south.

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue - then their could have been no war. If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war. If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war. Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?

Snestorm

05-25-10, 07:20 PM

@CaptainHaplo
Thanks for the great post.

Stealth Hunter

05-25-10, 09:46 PM

So until we see the textbooks that are being written to accomodate the curricullum you now admit to not having a problem with - there isn't much point in being concerned. So its pretty much a non-issue.

Not really admitting; I never had an issue with it to begin with. My concern is indeed about the content of the textbooks, and thankfully we've cleared that chapter up. Moving on.

Actually - your in error here. Grant did in fact own one slave that he acquired from Dent. He freed that slave within one year , but he did in fact own one.

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2002-01/grant.html

Actually no. That was Grant's father-in-law, Colonel Frederick Dent. He worked on the Dent Farm, after he married Julia, in the 1850s for a time- which was located near St. Louis, Missouri, a state where slavery had not officially been abolished by the state legislature (it was a state that was divided about the issue, and indeed about which side to take during the actual coming war). He had only one slave put under his care whilst he worked there, who was later taken back by Colonel Dent when Grant left to go to Illinois to work in a tannery. Julia still owned four, as a Dent, but the Grant family, Ulysses' family, never owned and slaves in his lifetime. He never ever bought any. Grant himself opposed slavery. He openly said he did during the election of 1860. And during the Reconstruction Era, he had an amazing track record for fighting for civil rights for freed slaves given the times.

Following West Point, Grant was stationed as a second lieutenant near St. Louis, Missouri, where he met Julia Dent, a plump eighteen-year-old with a slightly turned eye. Her outgoing and happy demeanor attracted Grant, as well as their shared love of riding horses. Julia had been raised with the pretensions of Southern aristocracy. Her father, who called himself “Colonel” Dent even though he had no military experience, owned twenty slaves -- a lifestyle alien to Grant, who was raised under his father’s stern abolitionist philosophy.

For his part, Dent was not thrilled about his daughter marrying a soldier with so few prospects. When Grant was sent to fight in the Mexican War in 1846, the courtship continued for the next two years through letters. Seven months after the U.S. victory, Colonel Dent finally agreed to their marriage. They were married at the family’s winter home in St. Louis, but without Ulysses’ parents in attendance. “Grant’s father, the abolitionist, really couldn’t forgive his connection to a slave-holding family. So it was a great source of tension,” says Max Byrd, author of Grant: A Novel. Within the year, Ulysses Grant freed the slave he had acquired through his marriage to Julia.

Again, that does nothing but confirm what I was saying. The slave actually belonged to Julia's family. Grant did not purchase him from Colonel Dent or from an auction, nor did he have the legal acquisition of him. It was Julia's slave in the first place, not Ulysses', and was retained as such even after their marriage. Slaves were considered to have been property.

And yes - I am one of those real pains when it comes to stuff like that - I even answered the census as marking "other" and writing in Native American. I was born in Georgia, after all!

Though you have European ancestors lol... the people who colonized the land and pushed the Native Americans/American Indians (the people who were living here before them) out of the way and in some cases to the point of extinction. The people who named Georgia "Georgia"...

Wait a minute - "they" are not making changes to the history books - they are setting up a curriculum - that you stated you didn't have specific issues with.

The teacher's curriculum; not the textbook curriculum and content or indeed school-specific curriculum (as in practices and observances that must be made by them). The standards the textbooks will have to meet are what I've been disagreeing with this entire time, because that's what they're changing. The teacher's curriculum is fine to me, hence why I've been saying I have no problems with it. Because the current textbooks do not meet the new content standards, with "outdated" definitions and information ("Atlantic Slave Trade" being changed to be incorporated into "Atlantic Triangular Trade", then the more erroneous changes in information that will be made about the religions of the Founding Fathers and the background on which the country was created- in addition to Jefferson being considered not a leader of the Intellectualism Movement in the Age of Enlightenment and the portrayal of the American Civil War as an "armed rebellion" against the United States government that was entirely about States' Rights and barely slavery), they will have to print new editions. Which is exactly, if you've been keeping up on the news, what they're going to do now. This isn't necessarily new information, either; it's been a well known fact for months that the textbooks would be changed as to what the information inside them contains, reported on by the news and covered by historians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html

Now, if you want me to be quoting chapter and verse of the textbook revisions they've approved, I'll gladly do so. But you didn't ask me to do that earlier; you just asked me what I disagreed with in the changes. And I told you already, about the Founding Fathers, creation of the country, and the Civil War revisionism. And I explained why I disagreed and why it was inaccurate to make such claims.

As far as the high school books go (I've chosen high school one to compare with my current version that I cited earlier).

(3) The eight strands of the essential knowledge and skills for social studies are intended to be integrated for instructional purposes with the history and geography strands establishing a sense of time and a sense of place. Skills listed in the geography and social studies skills strands in subsection (c) of this section should be incorporated into the teaching of all essential knowledge and skills for social studies. A greater depth of understanding of complex content material can be attained when integrated social studies content from the various disciplines and critical-thinking skills are taught together. and autobiographies,; landmark cases of the U.S. Supreme Court,; novels,; speeches, letters, diaries,; and poetry, songs, and artworks is encouraged. Selections may include a biography of Dwight Eisenhower, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham City Jail. Motivating resources are also available from museums, historical sites, presidential libraries, and local and state preservation societies.

Removal of the biography selection example, novel example, and letter example. This doesn't accomplish anything, other than removing considerations for the students to look into.

(4) Students identify the role of the U.S. free enterprise system within the parameters of this course and understand that this system may also be references as capitalism or the free market system.

Added by an SBOE amendment. This is just incorrect. The term "free enterprise" is not something that "may" refer to Capitalism or a free market economy; it is by definition a tenant of Capitalism, and Capitalism is a part of the free market economic theory.

(6)State and federal laws mandate a variety of celebrations and observances including Celebrate Freedom Week.
(c) Knowledge and skills.
(B) Each school district shall require that, during Celebrate Freedom Week or other week of instruction prescribed under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, students in Grades 3-12 study and recite the following text: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Federal law does not mandate that this observance must be held on Celebrate Freedom Week; Texas state law does not, either. Actually, the only thing either requires is that students be led in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week by the teachers/staff, starting on Monday, and may or may not continue the practice through Friday. The only real laws on the books are state, in which it clarifies that it ENCOURAGES others to "raise public awareness about the founding documents – the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence – and the critical role they play in the freedoms and rights we enjoy", not that they MUST.

(3)
(C) analyze social issues such as the treatment of affecting women, minorities, children, labor, growth of cities, and problems of immigrants, urbanization , and analyze the Social Gospel ,and philanthropy of industrialists.

On the revised version, it only reads:

analyze social issues affecting women, minorities, children, and problems of immigrants, urbanization , the Social Gospel ,and philanthropy of industrialists.

Just women, minorities, children, "problems" of immigrants, urbanization, the Social Gospel, and philanthropy of industrialists. What about the labor struggle that gave us child labor laws and worker's compensation, and the growth of cities which in the first place led to such great levels of urbanization?

History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920.
The student is expected to:
explain why significant events, policies, and individuals, including such as the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism/imperialism , Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Theodore Roosevelt, Samuel Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;

The revised version reads:

History. The student understands the emergence of the United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920.
The student is expected to:
explain why significant events, policies, and individuals, including the Spanish-American War, U.S. expansionism, Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Thayer Mahan, and Theodore Roosevelt, Samuel Dole, and missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power;

Expansionism it was, but it was also the subjugation and subordination of territories and the peoples residing on them. That is, according to the Dictionary of Human Geography, imperialism. The taking of the lands that are Cuba during the Spanish-American War is the first real example of this, but it continues with the Philippine Islands being taken over by military force, Hawaii being overthrown and annexed, American influences spanning clear to the Samoan monarch crisis of that latter half of the century and the political upheavals in China, indeed even the attitudes held by presidents and politicians about Mexico and Canada (Theodore Roosevelt especially). It's not so much imperialism in the sense of the goal being to create an empire as much as implementing it as a means of interventionalist policy- especially in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Several other times in this paragraph, they cut out imperialism and replace it with "expansionism", which really means the same thing.

For whatever reason, later on under this same section, they cut out talking about reasons for the United States entering World War I being related specifically to the subject of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania in May 1915 (which was a result of this naval doctrine- even though the Lusitania was a legitimate target of war since it was carrying ammunition and weapons from New York back to the UK AND the German embassy put out a warning in the newspaper for all travelers to proceed with caution because of this doctrine). At least they want to identify the causes.

It continues for a bit about contributions the American Expeditionary Forces made to the conflict, Black Jack Pershing, technological innovations, isolationism vs. neutrality, and finally cuts off on World War I about the Battle of the Argonne Forest and such similar events. Yet, for whatever reason, it cuts off about teaching about other important historical figures that were military leaders and heroes in the war (Pershing's name is X'd out here, but he's already covered by the previous part where it said that a section was to be dedicated just to discussing his contributions) who had a hand in the war after American involvement was officially declared- at least Wilhelm, Nicholas, George, Umberto and the lot are covered by discussing the causes of the war. This means no Joffre, no Petain, no Hindenburg, no Ludendorff, no Trenchard, no Haig, no Mackensen, no Scheer, no Spee, no Hipper, no Jellicoe, none of this leaders will be studied, even though they were central figures to the war; furthermore, this means no talk of the Lafayette Escadrille, nor any of Rickenbacker, the Richthofen Brothers (and Cousin Wolfram), Mannock, Bishop, Ball, Coppens, Fonck, Nungesser, Wolff, Boelcke, Loewenhardt, Udet, etc. (as well as ground figures like Alvin York and naval figures like John Cornwall).

Under the 5th section here, they have, for whatever reason, removed all mention of Robert La Follette of the Progressive Party, and Article C allows the impacts of such parties to be discussed on the country but removes discussion of their candidates from the learning process such as H. Ross Perot, Eugene Debs, and George Wallace. What sense does that make- omitting learning about individual historical figures?

History. The student understands the domestic and international impact of significant national and international decisions and conflicts from U.S. participation in World War II and the Cold War to the present on the United States. The student is expected to:
(A) identify reasons for U.S. involvement in World War II, including
Italian, German, and Japanese dictatorships, their aggression, especially the growth of dictatorships and the attack on Pearl Harbor;

The "significant national and international decisions and conflicts" part is completely cut out. So is the part about from the Cold War to the present-day United States. And so is the part about the growth of the dictatorships. Why, exactly- especially on the part about Fascist Italy, Nazi-Germany, and the Fascist Empire of Japan? Doesn't it make sense to discuss how these countries came to be as they were to learn about the history leading up to World War II and indeed World War II itself?

In that exact same section, they have chosen to remove learning about how the United States responded to Soviet aggression and ruthlessness in Europe after the war had ended- including learning about the Berlin Airlift, the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, and NATO. Again, this is leading up to the Cold War. It's very relevant to the interwar period leading up to American interventionalist policies about Communism (and the wars that followed; i.e. Korea and Vietnam). Which, it appears, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam are also out of the question on discussing. They have big bold red font with lines running through them.

Two articles down, the GI Bill is also neglected from discussion (the same bill that gave so many veterans the oh so many benefits they got to enjoy leading up to the Baby Boom and Golden Age of the 1950s), the election of 1948, McCarthyism and the searching for and convictions made towards Communist sympathizers and members of the Communist Party, and the achievement of Sputnik I's launch into orbit. There's a bunch of stuff they decided to add on later about McCarthyism and Cold War tensions, but all the stuff about McCarthyism isn't about the stuff that happened during it itself- it's just about why it made the Soviets so annoyed towards the United States (which is, obviously, because it persecuted Communists... and the Soviets were Communists... lol).

The origins of American domestic and foreign policies and issues that are facing us today are also omitted from study, listed around the part discussing impacts of the Cold War (also removed).

I haven't nor do I intend to cover the Civil Rights Movement changes they've made right now either. This is already a lot of material from just six pages alone.Yet your complaining about the books that a company (not the people on the Texas Board of Education) is going to write - when we havent even seen what they include - because they are not written yet.

But we already know what they're going to include... regardless of what company prints them (Prentice Hall or whoever), the content they will have to meet remains dictated by the textbook curriculum...

So if you don't have a problem with the curriculum itself -

Not the teacher's curriculum, just the textbook standards they're aiming for.

why should they be removed and the changes revoked - unless you want to do it just on the basis that you disagree with their personal philosophy and beliefs.

Or perhaps because I disagree that personal philosophy and beliefs should enter into this issue of what we should be teaching in school about historical subjects- especially when personal philosophy and beliefs enter into it?

I mean seriously - if your going to be upset over the books that will be used to teach - shouldn't you at least see the books first before you judge them?

Not really. I mean, what the textbook curriculum dictates will dictate what goes into the books. It's really very simple. If the simplest standards on material are not met to the changes made, the books will not be what was commissioned, henceforth not acceptable.

Or is that not necessary because you have a preconcieved notion already about what they will contain -

Again, the textbook curriculum these people decide on and change as they please affects what the content and material covered in the books is like, and how it is presented. If the books don't meet the curriculum, they will not be accepted to educational standards set by the state. Not difficult to understand in the least.

even though they are not created by the people you call incompetent

Again, textbook curriculum = textbook content. If the textbooks they're calling for don't meet the standards after they're printed, they won't be used for schooling lessons as the curriculum will not have been met and the educational standards they have set will not have been met either. This is where it becomes a legal issue on the issue of what the state says, what the school boards say, and what the textbook publishers print.

(though they were competent enough to get elected - but then again - so was the president... :stare:)

Quite lol. So have all the presidents been in the past too. But we're not talking politics, we're talking education. Please stick to the subject.

Seems your worried about a lot of stuff that isn't even real......

Is anybody else here having difficulty understanding how this process works? Tater and Steve, you guys get it; too few others are posting ATM though.

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

ALSO from your source:

In the years before the Civil War the political power in the Federal government, centered in Washington, D.C., was changing. Northern and mid-western states were becoming more and more powerful as the populations increased. Southern states lost political power because the population did not increase as rapidly. As one portion of the nation grew larger than another, people began to talk of the nation as sections. This was called sectionalism. Just as the original thirteen colonies fought for their independence almost 100 years earlier, the Southern states felt a growing need for freedom from the central Federal authority in Washington. Southerners believed that state laws carried more weight than Federal laws, and they should abide by the state regulations first. This issue was called State's Rights and became a very warm topic in congress.

(Which States' Rights were originally brought up over what? This paragraph doesn't mention why exactly or what exactly brought them to arguing over this, but it's quite simple: slavery. As I previously discussed, the Abolitionist movement in the 1850s from the northern states which had abolished slavery spread to wanting the federal government to abolish it in the southern states. Because the southern states were so dependent economically on slaves, the knew that the abolition of slavery would cripple their financial statuses and completely destroy their labor systems. Hence the issue of States' Rights, brought up over States' Rights on the right to own slaves or not and use them for labor or not. Not difficult to understand. Sources previously cited.)

Another quarrel between the North and South and perhaps the most emotional one, was over the issue of slavery. America was an agricultural nation and crops such as cotton were in demand around the world. Cotton was a plant that grew well in the southern climate, but it was a difficult plant to gather and process. Labor in the form of slaves were used on large plantations to plant and harvest cotton as well as sugar, rice, and other cash crops. The invention of the Cotton Gin by Eli Whitney made cotton more profitable for southern growers. Before this invention, it took one person all day to process two pounds of cotton by hand, a slow and inefficient method. Whitney's Cotton Gin machine could process that much within a half hour. Whitney's invention revolutionized the cotton industry and Southern planters saw their profits soar as more and more of them relied on cotton as their main cash crop. Slaves were a central part of that industry.

Slavery had been a part of life in America since the early colonial period and became more acceptable in the South than the North. Southern planters relied on slaves to run larger farms or plantations and make them profitable. Many slaves were also used to provide labor for the various household chores that needed to be done. This did not sit well with many northerners who felt that slavery was uncivilized and should be abolished. They were called abolitionists and thought that owning slaves was wrong for any reason. They loudly disagreed with the South's laws and beliefs concerning slavery. Yet slavery had been a part of the Southern way of life for well over 200 years and was protected not only by state laws, but Federal law as well. The Constitution of the United States guaranteed the right to own property and protected everyone against the seizure of property. A slave was viewed as property in the South and was important to the economics of the Southern cotton industry. The people of the Southern states did not appreciate Northern people, especially the abolitionists, telling them that slave ownership was a great wrong. This created a great amount of debate, mistrust, and misunderstanding.

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group -

For someone against people making pre-suppositions, you sure have a bad habit of doing it yourself. You didn't even let Steve respond lol.

This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettkidz/cause.htm

And it's not inaccurate. But it also points out that one of the *most* important issues that led to the war was over slavery, and therein States' Rights.

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states...

Hmm... Pennsylvania...

Last time I checked, it is in the Northern half of the United States. And last time I checked, it did indeed join the North/remain part of the Union during the Civil War. And last time I checked, they passed law to gradually abolish slavery in February 1780. Sources:

http://solarpowerrocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pennsylvania.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/civil_war_usa/CSA.documents/secede.gif

AND:

http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?

Odd how you have so many gripes against the government here and their accuracy when it comes to statistics and political affairs, yet you have no trouble accepting them as being historically correct... bit of a double standard but they're not wrong. Actually, they really did nothing but confirm how slavery was the issue that started the whole States' Rights argument, which inevitably led to the secessions.

Sure its not detailed - so if you want more info check out the "Tariff of Abomination" and following tariffs - you will find out how much other economic pressure was applied from north to south.

Even though their official reasons for secession, as pointed out by Platapus when you quoted him earlier, was over States' Rights/States' Sovereignty to the federal government, and indeed slavery; tariffs were not even mentioned. There were a lot of tariffs being put on them, that much is true; a lot of tariffs that were cheap. There were just so many to pay that the businessmen and plantation owners of the time complained they were being nickle'd and dime'd to death, even though the fees that they had to pay were really very small. And because other states weren't having to pay them, so they complained about equality being an issue.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1840850

Hell the Tariffs of 1857 were the lowest ones passed since 1816 for the entire country, including the south!

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue -

They were an issue, because the issue of slavery and states' rights to allow slavery/allow their citizens to own and buy and sell slaves were being made an issue in the first place by the Abolitionist Movement of the 1850s. This is what we have been telling you now for two pages.

then their could have been no war.

Well according to your sentiments derived from the non-equitorial historical statements by the National Park Service, there still would have been over tariffs lol.

If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war.

Master Of The Obvious. But not everybody did agree. Although, by federal law at that time, it was an act of treason. Did they have the right to leave the Union? No. It was an illegal act punishable by death for the instigators of the secession. Did they try anyway? Yes. Were they stupid to do so? Pretty much, yeah, based off the consequences for them. They could have given up, but they decided not to. Do you really think anyway that the country would be better off if they Confederates had won or if they country was still divided like this to this very day? I'm curious, Haplo, what good could have been gained from this?

The problem facing the CSA was the problem that faced the Founding Fathers when it came to the Articles of Confederation: the states had too much individual power. They were like their own individual countries and could do whatever they wanted to, to each other. Hence, the central committee could get nothing done... which is exactly why the Constitution was drafted to solve the problem. Otherwise the United States would not have been the *United States*, just a random collection of old colonies declaring their independence running around freely. The country would not have survived.

If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war.

The Framers would have disagreed... since they're the ones who clarified on what should be considered an act of treason against the nation.

Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?

I'd say you're doing what you do best: stating the obvious lol. Really man you have a gift... a... really unique... gift...

Sailor Steve

05-25-10, 10:24 PM

Oh the irony......
You know, it's a lot of fun trying to have a discussion with someone who keeps verbally rolling his eyes and laughing at people rather than calmly discussing the questions.

So you want someone to show you proof of what is stated? Gee - looks alot like me saying:
Where? I keep hearing all these accusations - but so far no one has actually shown where the changes do all these horrible things people say they do.
I've tried to politely point out that it's what they've said elsewhere. People are concerned about their oft-stated agenda. If someone tries to say the Constitution is flexible, are you one of the ones who instantly shouts "Original intent!"? And yet in the First Amendment discussion you want to ignore the intent and stick to the letter of the law. In this case intent is just as important as the words. 'Camels nose', 'slippery slope' and all that. You know the words. You've used them yourself, when the argument warrants it.

However, as an act of good faith, let me help you out, as well as clear something up for those who claim slavery was the only issue. 2 birds - 1 stone.

Now - before you start being so sure this is written by some pro-south "sons of the confederacy" group - you better be sitting down. This was written by a Department - under dear old Uncle Sam. Its from the National Park Service, kids page. Here is the link:
Fascinating. All the official statements, even from the "Northern Yankee Government" doesn't make it so. What I asked for was one single contemporary document on the tariffs. I'm waiting.

Oh - and note this is from the Gettysburg National Military Park - yes - in Pennsylvania.... you know - one of them "northern" anti-slavery states....

Or are you now going to say the government is slanting the arguement as well?
Argument by insult is no argument at all. Do I talk down to you?

Also - I will repeat what no one seems to want to address.... if states rights were not an issue - then their could have been no war. If everyone agreed that states had no right to leave the union - no war. If everyone agreed that they could leave the union - no war. Only if the 2 sides disagreed could the war occur. Seems even uncle Sam agrees with me.... What say you?
'Uncle Sam', in this case, is a historian somewhere writing his own opinion of what it meant. Does he cite one single source for his statements? No, he tells a story and expects you to believe it. And since it matches your own beliefs and prejudices, you swallow it whole and use it as 'evidence', even 'proof'.

Okay, I'll use your own insistence on letters. Search all the Ordinances of Secession, search all the Declarations of Causes, and show me one single document that contains a discussion of "States Rights". You'll find many mentions of States, and many mentions of rights, but the only time any of them uses the phrase "denying our rights" it a direct reference to slavery.

Stealth Hunter

05-25-10, 10:33 PM

He's responding to us as we speak... WELL- HAVE FUN WITH THAT, HAP.

CaptainHaplo

05-26-10, 06:59 AM

con·tem·po·rar·y

[kuhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn-tem-puh-rer-ee] adjective, noun,plural-rar·ies.
–adjective 1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time: Newton's discovery of the calculus was contemporary with that of Leibniz.
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

I will assume you mean a document from the time period - and not a modern one.

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel
published in the English Magazine: All the Year Round, December 28, 1861 edition (Dickens/Morley)

Perhaps the relevant portion of the historical speech of one Robert Barnwell Rhett - a US Senator who resigned his seat and spoke at the South Carolina convention will do?

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

How about the Georgia Secession document?

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.

It was Richard Hofstadter who in the 1950's asserted that slavery was the only real issue - up to that time it was accepted that slavery, other economic issues (such as tariffs), states rights, and inequal representation were all real factors. So I am guessing you guys learned your history in the 50's and 60's when his views were predominant? It should be noted that modern historians are now more in agreement with Charles Beard - who in the 1920's asserted that tariffs played a large role in the war starting.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught. I don't fault you for that - and steve, I was not meaning to talk down to you. I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes

But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?

tater

05-26-10, 08:43 AM

Slavery was at the root of everything. It's wasn't A major cause, it was THE major cause.

Taxation? The South was less industrial—poor. If the Northern States wanted more taxation on the South to catch up with their newfound industrial wealth (and hence tax load), it was related to... slavery. The South remained agrarian because with the cotton gin, slavery allowed an agrarian economy to trump industrialization.

No matter what you do, slavery is at the very heart of the question, it informed every decision Southern leaders made, even if implicitly, not explicitly.

The argument that it was "state's rights" because otherwise they'd have been allowed to leave is false. It's like saying the cause of a death was blood loss, and neglecting that the patient had been shot.

Sailor Steve

05-26-10, 11:00 AM

Yes - I am fully in agreement that slavery was a major cause. But to claim that other economic factors - like the proposed Morrill Tariff - had no impact - after the history of the Tariff of Abomination and the following Nullification Crisis, is to blindly insist that every confederate soldier was thus willing to fight and die for the property of the rich neighbor - since not every soldier owned slaves.
Very good finds. This is probably what UnderseaLCPL was looking for on the other thread.

Just so you understand me, I'm a firm believer in truth. I've always known that the Civil War, like any war, had many causes behind it. My irritation started with the aftermath of the Ken Burns documentary, when a huge number of, as I call them, 'Southern Apologists', started ranting that everyone needed to be educated to the 'fact' that "It wasn't about slavery!" I like a scholarly discussion of reasons and causes, with evidence given, and with this latest post you've done that. I apologize if I've lumped you in with those others, but you have to admit that they are a problem.

As for the reason soldiers signed up to fight, of course Southern soldiers weren't fighting to protect slavery, nor were Northern soldiers fighting to stop it. Soldiers fight for what they are told, and that is always that the enemy is trying to destroy their way of life. That is the only reason anyone joins the rank-and-file army - to protect what's theirs against an evil enemy.

Historical records show that it was not just slavery. But your likely quoting what you were taught.
I hope I've relieved you of that opinion. I grew up in California, where I was taught practically no history at all. On the other hand I have a friend who spent one of his high school years in Georgia, where, in his words, "The first week of American History was spent discussing the events leading up to the Civil War. The last week was about everything that's happened since."

He also like to quote his history teacher as an example of what he was told at the time: "Some of you seem to think that I believe Robert E. Lee was the greatest man ever to walk the face of this earth. This is not true. Remember that our Lord Jesus Christ also walked the face of this earth."

I simply think that you guys are locked in on something without a willingness to look at the full picture. I can name a number of modern, respected historians that would also concur with my stance, based of the vast records we have.
And I believed the same about you, based on my experience with the vast majority of people who take the attitude that slavery was less than the most important issue. They, as I have said, mostly seem to want it to not be an issue at all. They will blame everything on Lincoln, and call it "Lincoln's War", even though they started seceeding when the abolitionist party took power.

Was Slavery a major issue? Yes
But there was more to it than JUST that. More than just slavery is mentioned in just about every single document or speech related to the question from the time period. What more do you need?
By now you should know that I agree, and I don't need any more. My only beef is with those who say slavery was not the main issue, or not an issue at all. The other problem, though, is identifying who actually believes what, and who is trying to accomplish what. How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go. Before that causes offense, I'll say that I don't believe that. I don't disbelieve it either, just the same as I neither believe nor disbelieve in God. My point in saying that is that I have that exact problem with the original topic of this thread. These people are not to be trusted, no matter what they say.

And just so you know, I feel the same about the liberal factions in this country as well. My bottom line is always "I don't know". But I don't trust people who claim they do, either.

CaptainHaplo

05-26-10, 05:22 PM

I like a scholarly discussion of reasons and causes, with evidence given, and with this latest post you've done that. I apologize if I've lumped you in with those others, but you have to admit that they are a problem.

No apology necessary - you have been civil the whole time, and if I "talked down" to you, I regret it - it was not my conscious intent. If those people that claim that "It wasn't about slavery!" would actually ADD to that statement, they would be right - "It wasn't JUST about slavery". The 40+ years of tariffs that were seen as punitave by the South had created a truly sectional country, and it was the nullification crisis of 1832 that first raised the spectre of secession, states rights and the consideration of the use of Federal force to enforce the authority of the Federal government in a State. To say that the issue of tariffs had created significant and deep "bad blood" between the North and South is historically supported.

How do I know that you aren't giving ground and playing nice scholar just to bend things the way you want them to go.

Every good debate creates a bit of learning. I learned a bit from the last thread on the discussion - and that informs my thinking. I guess the easiest way to describe my view on the issue is this - there was a rather complex history that predates the civil war itself. In essence, that history created a powder keg - filled with the powder created by distrust over tariffs, differences of opinion on States rights, as well as the social and economic reality (and fear of abolition) of slavery. The lighting of the fuse was the final year preceding the election of Lincoln. When Lincoln was president, the fuse hit the powder. At that point, it was too late to stop the explosion. The reality is that the move to start the war however was major idiocy by South Carolina and the pro-slavery political movement (not because the South lost). I will start a new thread on that one if it deserves enough discussion.

Sailor Steve

05-26-10, 07:54 PM

I will say that the secession began with Lincoln's election, before he ever took office, which does add to the slavery indictment.

But...the shooting started over what most shooting starts over - land. If President Davis and Governor Pickens had said "Okay, you keep that fort out in our harbor. We'll even make money selling them supplies", there wouldn't have been much Lincoln could have done about it. After all, in his inaugural speech he had said flat-out that he wouldn't fire the first shot. Of course he was too canny and they were too gullible and hotheaded for them to think of that possibility, so they fired the first shot and Lincoln got his war. I'm not condemning him for that - he felt that the Union had to be preserved at all costs.

On the other hand, the colonials managed to wait until the British fired the first shot, so they were sure they had the moral high ground. After all the complaints from 1763 to 1774, the taxes and opressions, the first shot of the Revolution was fired over the question of...Gun Control!:arrgh!:

CaptainHaplo

05-26-10, 08:15 PM

Well Steve - your right. But had the SC hotheads thought for just a minute - the blowing of the powder keg could have been averted. The fear was that with an "abolitionist" president, it was only a matter of time before abolition was law. However, the reality was that abolition would have taken MASSIVE amounts of time and money to make happen - and there was no good way for the North to push for it.

Sure, they had a moral stance - but lets play hypotheticals for a moment here - even if Congress passed (with the South fighting tooth and nail against it) an abolition law, and Lincoln had signed it, what would the slaves have done? The Federal government would have suddenly mandated what would have amounted to a humanitarian crises on a scale never seen before at that time. Every former slave - free - but without any possessions, money, education or ability to secure the necessities of life. Combined with the existant power structure in the Southern states, it isn't hard to see that the suddenly freed slave would have little to no hope of long term survival - meaning the North would create a situation where it would be inundated with all the freed slaves - a refugee crisis. That would have been the last thing the North would have wanted.

Unfortunately, with the 40+ years of "north vs south" interest butting heads, the politico's had made a cardinal mistake. They believed their own rhetoric - that if the "abolitionist" was elected president, it would be the "straw that broke the camel's back. And so, when Lincoln was elected, they jumped without even thinking about the reality of the situation.

Sailor Steve

05-26-10, 08:34 PM

Another block to instant abolition would have been Jefferson's Conundrum. Some modern folks like to accuse TJ of being two-faced and hypocritical, but the reality was that he was conflicted. He wanted at various times to free the slaves in Virginia, but even with his own slaves he realized that most of them had no real skills. The law in Virginia was that any freed slave had to leave the state within one year. Jefferson recognized that his "people" could very well starve, as they had no qualifications for jobs in the North and no plantation owner was going to hire someone to the job his own "people" could do for free.

It was the same in 1860. Freeing the slaves was a noble idea, but they all had to be trained to do other jobs, or the owners had to be trained to pay the workers for the effort they were getting for nothing; plus the landholders would have to be recompensed for lost labor, just to stay competetive with their northern counterparts. In short, it was going to take time. Lincoln was willing to spend that time and effort, if for no other reason than to keep the economy stable.

What it really would have taken was for everyone to sit down and discuss things rationally, and that almost never happens - even here.:sunny:

Jefferson believed that with the rebellions in Haiti things had gone to far; there could be no emancipation in America without either repatriation to Africa or a Black vs White civil war.

Agree with the politics or not, I think Tom and Abe would have both cheered the 2008 election, just for what it meant to their own histories.

Snestorm

05-26-10, 11:21 PM