[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

- 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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The wallbuilders site is not the curriculum.

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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".

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Is this one perfect? No -

No kidding? Where was your first clue?

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I doubt anything can be -

Master Of The Obvious.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

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/show...&postcount=128
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=134