|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:02 am Post subject: Texas the wacko magnet |
 |
|
Texas is changing its public school textbooks to include fundamentalist religious right propoganda. For instance there is a world government trying to usurp the soveriegnty of the US government.........or here's another one, there was no slave trade, slaves were traded as part of a more extended trade going on...............and how about this one, the founding fathers did not necessarily say that there was a seperation between church and state.
The fundamentalist religious right wants to replace historical facts with its wacko propoganda and in Texas apparently is coming close to succeeding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Texas the wacko magnet |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| For instance there is a world government trying to usurp the soveriegnty of the US government. |
Well this one at least is absolutely, demonstrably true. Anyone who hasn't figured this out yet is a wacko. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the Associated Press:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100522/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies_23
| Quote: |
In final votes late Friday, conservatives on the State Board of Education strengthened requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and required that the U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." |
1) Judeo-Christian influences: This shouldn't need explanation. The Christian religion was a constant presence. I would be weary to attempt to claim that Christianity factored into the foundation of the Constitution, however, as it may be revealed that the Founding Fathers had unorthodox religious beliefs. Also, there were non-believers present.
2) Ours is a Constitutional Republic. The difference is important and popularly neglected. A democratic republic responds solely to the will of the majority. A constitutional republic, however, elects representatives that ought to respond to the will of the people but are limited in power based upon a constitution. Sounds rather utopian compared the reality of Washington these days.
| Quote: |
| In one of the most significant curriculum changes, the board diluted the rationale for the separation of church and state in a high school government class, noting that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring students to compare and contrast the judicial language with the First Amendment's wording. |
This is correct. There is no separation of church and state in neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. There is a guarantee of freedom of religion and protection from a state church, but there is no actual separation. Indeed, a legal separation would be tantamount to creating laws to suppress religion by removing it as a subject of discourse. Teaching that there is a legal separation is simply, factually wrong.
| Quote: |
Students also will be required to study the decline in the U.S. dollar's value, including the abandonment of the gold standard. |
Teaching the fundamentals of American economics is an often ignored but direly needed for any acceptable civic education. How can this be objectionable?
| Quote: |
The board rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D., and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class. |
While I think Jefferson is a fine political philosopher and one whom I respect greatly, I agree with the date-tag. CE and BCE still correspond to the birth and death of Christ. Retaining the Latin (Anno Domini) is a cultural artifact and should not so light-heartedly cast away.
| Quote: |
| They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty. |
I'll bet a good 99% of all school children are utterly ignorant of the fact that the US is the only nation on earth (insofar as I am aware) that is compelled, by its legal structure, to make law any treaty signed by the federal government. Anything that we sign onto in the UN becomes law. Other governments may sign an agreement, but they must adopt the laws to comply with that agreement -- or don't, whichever suits them. In other words, France can sign the Kyoto agreement and make token gestures of compliance. If we sign the Kyoto protocol we are held to it by law. Therefore, the UN literally undermines our Sovereignty, but only because we were foolish enough to create and to administer to such an organization. Conservatives want a Constitutional Amendment to prevent this, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Progressives in government view the UN as a kill-switch for opposition legislature and therefore won't let it through.
In total, I find very little about these new standards that are objectionable. In fact, most of the history they are mandating is quite true. By allowing the previous curriculum to teach otherwise is a form of political manipulation.
If you're going to force intellectual conditioning upon our children then at least give them the straight dope. Teach them how the UN works and how it affects us -- this is important! Teach them how our currency works and how it used to work -- that's important, too. Teach them what the Constitution says, not what people think it says -- teach them to read the damn thing.
Any state mandated curriculum is a bad thing inherently. But as far as dieted history lessons go this one is an improvement over the last.
To claim that Texas is a state of "wackos" because they've reformed their official history curriculum is grossly hypocritical. This is a common thing to do in smaller bits over longer periods of time as usually buried in other bills or occasionally independent legislature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
From the Associated Press:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100522/ap_on_re_us/us_texas_schools_social_studies_23
| Quote: |
In final votes late Friday, conservatives on the State Board of Education strengthened requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers and required that the U.S. government be referred to as a "constitutional republic" rather than "democratic." |
1) Judeo-Christian influences: This shouldn't need explanation. The Christian religion was a constant presence. I would be weary to attempt to claim that Christianity factored into the foundation of the Constitution, however, as it may be revealed that the Founding Fathers had unorthodox religious beliefs. Also, there were non-believers present. |
I have no problem with this being taught in history lessons, as it is objectively true. Just teaching the importance of Christianity in American history is not the same as indoctrinating students with the Christian message.
| Quote: |
| 2) Ours is a Constitutional Republic. The difference is important and popularly neglected. A democratic republic responds solely to the will of the majority. A constitutional republic, however, elects representatives that ought to respond to the will of the people but are limited in power based upon a constitution. Sounds rather utopian compared the reality of Washington these days. |
Absolutely. There is a huge difference between the two, and there can never be too much emphasis on this fact.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| In one of the most significant curriculum changes, the board diluted the rationale for the separation of church and state in a high school government class, noting that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring students to compare and contrast the judicial language with the First Amendment's wording. |
This is correct. There is no separation of church and state in neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. There is a guarantee of freedom of religion and protection from a state church, but there is no actual separation. Indeed, a legal separation would be tantamount to creating laws to suppress religion by removing it as a subject of discourse. Teaching that there is a legal separation is simply, factually wrong. |
Interesting point.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Students also will be required to study the decline in the U.S. dollar's value, including the abandonment of the gold standard. |
Teaching the fundamentals of American economics is an often ignored but direly needed for any acceptable civic education. How can this be objectionable? |
A step in the right direction. If only they'd start teaching kids about the Federal Reserve and how it basically works.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The board rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D., and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class. |
While I think Jefferson is a fine political philosopher and one whom I respect greatly, I agree with the date-tag. CE and BCE still correspond to the birth and death of Christ. Retaining the Latin (Anno Domini) is a cultural artifact and should not so light-heartedly cast away. |
I don't really care about the date tags. Thomas Jefferson should definitely not be downplayed though. He was probably the most important of them all.
| Quote: |
I'll bet a good 99% of all school children are utterly ignorant of the fact that the US is the only nation on earth (insofar as I am aware) that is compelled, by its legal structure, to make law any treaty signed by the federal government. Anything that we sign onto in the UN becomes law. Other governments may sign an agreement, but they must adopt the laws to comply with that agreement -- or don't, whichever suits them. In other words, France can sign the Kyoto agreement and make token gestures of compliance. If we sign the Kyoto protocol we are held to it by law. Therefore, the UN literally undermines our Sovereignty, but only because we were foolish enough to create and to administer to such an organization. Conservatives want a Constitutional Amendment to prevent this, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Progressives in government view the UN as a kill-switch for opposition legislature and therefore won't let it through.
In total, I find very little about these new standards that are objectionable. In fact, most of the history they are mandating is quite true. By allowing the previous curriculum to teach otherwise is a form of political manipulation.
If you're going to force intellectual conditioning upon our children then at least give them the straight dope. Teach them how the UN works and how it affects us -- this is important! Teach them how our currency works and how it used to work -- that's important, too. Teach them what the Constitution says, not what people think it says -- teach them to read the damn thing.
Any state mandated curriculum is a bad thing inherently. But as far as dieted history lessons go this one is an improvement over the last.
To claim that Texas is a state of "wackos" because they've reformed their official history curriculum is grossly hypocritical. This is a common thing to do in smaller bits over longer periods of time as usually buried in other bills or occasionally independent legislature. |
Agreed. Texas is moving in a better direction than most other states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I remember, Jefferson was a strong advocate of separation of church and state. No wonder they want to replace him as an influential political philosopher. Let's look at some of the religious views of some of the Founding Fathers in America-
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half 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."
-Thomas Paine
�Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.�
-James Madison
"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."
-James Madison
"I believe in no such thing [eternal damnation]. My adoration of the author of the Universe is too profound and too sincere. The love of God and his creation--delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence--though but an atom, a molecule organique, in the Universe--these are my religion."
-John Adams
�Washington is no more than a Unitarian, if anything.�
-Comment about George Washington by Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson
�Religious controversies are always productive of more irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.�
-George Washington
William Edelen, author of The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents: From Washington to F.D.R, comments,
"Our first six presidents must be crying in their graves today. Our society is saturated with the lethal disease that they fought so hard against. I speak of the obscene wedding today between many politicians and orthodox Christianity" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| .38 Special wrote: |
| 2) Ours is a Constitutional Republic. The difference is important and popularly neglected. A democratic republic responds solely to the will of the majority. A constitutional republic, however, elects representatives that ought to respond to the will of the people but are limited in power based upon a constitution. Sounds rather utopian compared the reality of Washington these days. |
What?? This is the first time I've ever heard the term "constitutional republic". You are mixing democracy and democratic republic. Your definition of "democratic republic" is wrong. That is the definition of a democracy. A democratic republic is what you describe as a "constitutional republic". The USA IS a democratic republic.
| .38 Special wrote: |
| Quote: |
Students also will be required to study the decline in the U.S. dollar's value, including the abandonment of the gold standard. |
Teaching the fundamentals of American economics is an often ignored but direly needed for any acceptable civic education. How can this be objectionable? |
Yes, but why is it in a HISTORY class? Sure, students should learn econ but this is a history textbook. Although sure, the abandoment of the gold standard falls under the billing of history.
| .38 Special wrote: |
| Quote: |
| They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty. |
I'll bet a good 99% of all school children are utterly ignorant of the fact that the US is the only nation on earth (insofar as I am aware) that is compelled, by its legal structure, to make law any treaty signed by the federal government. Anything that we sign onto in the UN becomes law. Other governments may sign an agreement, but they must adopt the laws to comply with that agreement -- or don't, whichever suits them. In other words, France can sign the Kyoto agreement and make token gestures of compliance. If we sign the Kyoto protocol we are held to it by law. Therefore, the UN literally undermines our Sovereignty, but only because we were foolish enough to create and to administer to such an organization. Conservatives want a Constitutional Amendment to prevent this, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Progressives in government view the UN as a kill-switch for opposition legislature and therefore won't let it through. |
No, it doesn't undermine our sovereignty. First, it takes 2/3s of the Senate to implement a treaty that we sign. Second, if we want to pull out of it, we can do so. For instance, if we were to sign the Kyoto agreement, but then down the road decided it was a bunch of BS, it isn't like the UN (or any other institution) could force us to still comply.
edit: cleaned up quote.
Last edited by bucheon bum on Mon May 24, 2010 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I apologize for the error in quoting in the previous post. I would edit it but for some reason I can't do it on my work computer, so I will clean it up later on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
| 2) Ours is a Constitutional Republic. The difference is important and popularly neglected. A democratic republic responds solely to the will of the majority. A constitutional republic, however, elects representatives that ought to respond to the will of the people but are limited in power based upon a constitution. Sounds rather utopian compared the reality of Washington these days. |
What?? This is the first time I've ever heard the term "constitutional republic". You are mixing democracy and democratic republic. Your definition of "democratic republic" is wrong. That is the definition of a democracy. A democratic republic is what you describe as a "constitutional republic". The USA IS a democratic republic. |
You can feel free to look that up. I do not require you or anyone to take my word for it. I encourage anyone to research the most basic premises of their government.
| Quote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
| Quote: |
Students also will be required to study the decline in the U.S. dollar's value, including the abandonment of the gold standard. |
Teaching the fundamentals of American economics is an often ignored but direly needed for any acceptable civic education. How can this be objectionable? |
Yes, but why is it in a HISTORY class? Sure, students should learn econ but this is a history textbook. Although sure, the abandoment of the gold standard falls under the billing of history. |
Where the dollar has been and how it became what it is today is history. While a dedicated economics class would be ideal, we should consider ourselves fortunate that the department of education allows the teaching of history at all -- after all, there is a possibility that a child may be left behind while learning history.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| .38 Special wrote: |
| They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty. |
I'll bet a good 99% of all school children are utterly ignorant of the fact that the US is the only nation on earth (insofar as I am aware) that is compelled, by its legal structure, to make law any treaty signed by the federal government. Anything that we sign onto in the UN becomes law. Other governments may sign an agreement, but they must adopt the laws to comply with that agreement -- or don't, whichever suits them. In other words, France can sign the Kyoto agreement and make token gestures of compliance. If we sign the Kyoto protocol we are held to it by law. Therefore, the UN literally undermines our Sovereignty, but only because we were foolish enough to create and to administer to such an organization. Conservatives want a Constitutional Amendment to prevent this, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Progressives in government view the UN as a kill-switch for opposition legislature and therefore won't let it through. |
No, it doesn't undermine our sovereignty. First, it takes 2/3s of the Senate to implement a treaty that we sign. Second, if we want to pull out of it, we can do so. For instance, if we were to sign the Kyoto agreement, but then down the road decided it was a bunch of BS, it isn't like the UN (or any other institution) could force us to still comply. |
UN resolutions may be passed against us without the explicit agreement of our government. Therefore, it undermines our sovereignty, just as it undermined Iraq's, undermines Iran, Palestine, and N. Korea.
The UN can be our tool of hegemony or it can turn against us. While I do not disagree with you that it is unlikely the UN will attempt to force our hand, the possibility certainly exists. It is an important lesson for school children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well dictionary.com's definition is rather vague:
| Quote: |
| a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state |
The two links provided there would indicate that my definition is correct.
According to constitutional republic is actually too broad a term. To quote:
| Quote: |
| A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people (in democratic republics those representatives are elected by the people) and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. |
In short, the United States is both a constitutional and democratic republic.
Here is another site that gives a similar description
And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
I guess you could say it's a "democratic republic" in terms of who actually wields practical political power(ie. the electorate). However, it seems very starange to me to refer to the UK as a republic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| First, it takes 2/3s of the Senate to implement a treaty that we sign. |
According to the Constitution. But this hasn't been the case since the 1940s.
Take NAFTA, for example. The House passed it 234-200, and the Senate only 61-38 in 1993. But the US Supreme Court refused to grant a petition of certiori to hear a challenge in 2001. The District Court of Northern Alabama said the President had authority to negotiate and conclude NAFTA under his executive authority and under the fast track legislation, and NAFTA was permissibly approved and implemented through an Act of Congress. The 11th Circuit on appeal struck down the District Court's finding when it said the question was a non-judiciable political question.
In other words, bucheon bum, you are able to read the Constitution. But your gov't seems unwilling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Well dictionary.com's definition is rather vague:
| Quote: |
| a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state |
The two links provided there would indicate that my definition is correct.
According to constitutional republic is actually too broad a term. To quote:
| Quote: |
| A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people (in democratic republics those representatives are elected by the people) and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. |
In short, the United States is both a constitutional and democratic republic.
Here is another site that gives a similar description
And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
Dude, the US is a constitutional republic, full stop. The 'constitution' part being self-explanatory, the 'republic' part already implying elected representation. The term "democratic republic" is redundant.
The UK doesn't have an official constitutional document like the US, but it still has codified constitutional law. It is usually called a constitutional monarchy. It functions under a parliamentary system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
I guess you could say it's a "democratic republic" in terms of who actually wields practical political power(ie. the electorate). However, it seems very starange to me to refer to the UK as a republic. |
| Quote: |
| The UK doesn't have an official constitutional document like the US, but it still has codified constitutional law. It is usually called a constitutional monarchy. It functions under a parliamentary system. |
Yes, I'm dumb. Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
| Quote: |
| The term "democratic republic" is redundant. |
No, it is not. There can be different kinds of republics other than democratic (such as Rome). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
I guess you could say it's a "democratic republic" in terms of who actually wields practical political power(ie. the electorate). However, it seems very starange to me to refer to the UK as a republic. |
| Quote: |
| The UK doesn't have an official constitutional document like the US, but it still has codified constitutional law. It is usually called a constitutional monarchy. It functions under a parliamentary system. |
Yes, I'm dumb. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. |
Well, you said it, not me...
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The term "democratic republic" is redundant. |
No, it is not. There can be different kinds of republics other than democratic (such as Rome). |
Yeah, the Roman republic was also democratic, by definition. The Senate may not have been elected, but the the consuls, tribunes and other officials were. All republics are democratic by definition. This does not mean they are pure democracies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| And I would say the UK is strictly a democratic republic since it does not have a constitution. |
I guess you could say it's a "democratic republic" in terms of who actually wields practical political power(ie. the electorate). However, it seems very starange to me to refer to the UK as a republic. |
| Quote: |
| The UK doesn't have an official constitutional document like the US, but it still has codified constitutional law. It is usually called a constitutional monarchy. It functions under a parliamentary system. |
Yes, I'm dumb. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. |
Well, you said it, not me... |
Yes, I was acknowleding my mistake. I was being self-depreciating there, not sarcastic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
