The DoI has no legal force. It was written before our system of law was even founded in the Constitution.

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.

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.

: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):

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:
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.

You're starting to rant.

What Platapus said was
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1395862) 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"

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1396467) 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.fi...pius-xii-2.jpg
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist...age/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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by August 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1396523) 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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



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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike 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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 1396745) Y'know i've had religious proselytizers knock on my door

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?

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.

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.

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 :)

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:

Quote:

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.

I didn't say the DoI was a founding document. That was sarcasm. :roll:


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.

That's what I thought.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August 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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by August 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August 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.



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/...er_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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo 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.

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?