Why send your children to private school?

[Sailor Steve]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

[Aramike]

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

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]

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.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Hitler and Stalin were athiests.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

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.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.



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"

Originally Posted by August

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...




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?

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by The Book

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?

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.

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."

Originally Posted by August

Y'know i've had religious proselytizers knock on my door

Originally Posted by August

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]

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


<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]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.