Texas Revises Curriculum

[Endorenna]

I worded it that way due to lack of a better term. I don't think religion should be practiced publically, or beliefs should be known, because you have some Christians who just go, "Convert or burn in Hell," and then there's the Christian extremists. I'm for freedom of religion, but I don't think it should be a public thing. I know, I know, the chances of that working are slim to none, but as I said before, religion seems to do more harm than good. Buddhism has to be one of the few religions I respect any more, just because I'm unaware of extremists from that particular religion, and to my knowledge, it's never started a religiously fueled war. It's by no mean perfect, but it works.

 

So...it's okay for us to have freedom of religion as long as we give up freedom of speech? o_0

 

You can be a moral person and not believe in God, just as you can believe in God and be a immoral person. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

Quite true, but many religions do say that morals are not an option--they're a definite need, which does sorta help one follow those morals. But no, I'm not saying that all unreligious people are immoral. They just don't have a basis in absolute truth, which logically leads to "I can do whatever I want".

 

Nope. Atheism is not a religion.

 

Atheists have faith that there is no God, so I disagree with your statement.

 

Anyway, I was just responding to the "religion should be banned" thing. This thread is getting kinda off-track, so I think I'll step out now before it veers away from the topic any more.

[True_Avery]

So...it's okay for us to have freedom of religion as long as we give up freedom of speech? o_0

I'll have to agree with this statement. Public show of Religion is a right of Freedom of Speech.

 

However, I do think it still needs to stay out of politics and its influence not be allowed to be used in school as a form of indoctrination, as is being shown by the Texas board.

 

But no, I'm not saying that all unreligious people are immoral. They just don't have a basis in absolute truth, which logically leads to "I can do whatever I want".

Um, no. Being nonreligious doesn't mean you give yourself permission to "whatever". It means you're nonreligious. You are exactly saying all unreligious people are immoral.

[ForeverNight]

While I suppose that the latter term would be more appropriate in the context of classifying a government, and is also a tad more specific, both are inherently interchangeable, which brings me to rule that it is definitely biased against the Democratic Party.

 

No, the two are NOT inherently interchangeable. The US is not a democracy, despite what Hollywood and other propaganda has said, the US is still a Republic, a Democratic Republic yes, but not a Democracy. Thus one is not, 'more appropriate', one is correct the other is wrong.

 

The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

 

Emphasis Mine

 

Source

 

Sorry, but that's one thing that really annoys me.

 

I can somewhat agree with this notion, as the term "capitalism" has become as nearly as derogatory as "socialism", or at least in the US. Still, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't call it by what it really is.

 

Nearly? At least where I am Socialism is greeted with cheers and Capitalism with boos. But then, Minnesota is a rather screwy place. However, But, yea, I'm with you here, let's tell it like it is.

[mimartin]

They just don't have a basis in absolute truth, which logically leads to "I can do whatever I want".

By the same logic, you could say religion can lead to evil acts because they believe are doing it in the name of their God. (Personally, I disagree with both because I believe it is the person that does wrong and religion or lack there of is only used as a scapegoat. )

 

 

Atheists have faith that there is no God, so I disagree with your statement.

Nope, Atheist believe there is no God because they see no proof that God exist. It is the oposite of faith which believes in something without evidence.

 

Well, God forbid we actually teach about personal responsibility for things like drug use and dating violence, because we all know that society forces the pills into our mouths, the needles into our arms, and people to beat the snot out of each other. Nope, learning to control your own behavior and be responsible for your own actions must be just awful. I believe I'll exercise my personal responsibility in calling the writer of this article biased in the extreme, and idiotic on top of it.

Just say no. There that is the Republican plan on how to fix drug abuse. It was started in the 80s so America must be drug free by now. Hope they don’t forget to put that in the Reagan section. Just abstaining instead of actually teaching sex education seems to be working out real well to, just ask the brilliant mind from Alaska. I'm all for personal responsibility, but just telling someone to say no or don’t does very little in giving people the tools needed to be responsible.

[Ping]

@Endorenna: You don't need religion to have morals. I do know some atheists myself, and they are very normal people, with clean records, and they know what's right and wrong. You have seriously flawed logic if you think people need religion to learn morals.

 

So...it's okay for us to have freedom of religion as long as we give up freedom of speech? o_0

 

I'm fine with giving up some forms of freedom of speech; protests by hate groups are not needed. Religious groups are things that are unneeded. People are capable of getting through life without faith or proof of a higher power.

 

By the same logic, you could say religion can lead to evil acts because they believe are doing it in the name of their God. (Personally, I disagree with both because I believe it is the person that does wrong and religion or lack there of is only used as a scapegoat. )

 

Religion does lead to evil acts. Look at all the extremists who hate and terrorize in the name of religion. Then there's these people on the school board. If there was no religion, the world would be much better off.

[mimartin]

Religion does lead to evil acts. Look at all the extremists who hate and terrorize in the name of religion. Then there's these people on the school board. If there was no religion, the world would be much better off.

Religion can lead to evil acts, just as non-religion can lead to evil acts. Evil acts are carried out by people, not by concepts. Other than the “true” instances of mental illness, people choice to be immoral. Saying that their God or their lack of faith made them evil is merely an attempt to divert the blame either while trying to shift the blame to others or while trying to figure out why they would do such a thing. Just because I am a Christian does not mean Christianity should be blamed for my immoral behavior. I am the one that made the choice; I am the only one to blame. End of story.

[Web Rider]

Atheists have faith that there is no God, so I disagree with your statement.

 

Nope, Atheist believe there is no God because they see no proof that God exist. It is the oposite of faith which believes in something without evidence.

 

You're both wrong. There is not enough evidence to prove there is, or is not a God, therefore, belief in either direction is faith. Proof=/=Evidence, but proof requires evidence. Atheists DO have faith that God does not exist, as the very definition of faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. Just as I have faith there are aliens in our universe, and others do not. This simply means that Atheists have a belief.

 

However, a religion is a belief system, defined by a core dogma. Atheists do not have this. There is no Book of Atheism, there is no single document to which all Atheists claim to define the way in which they believe. Sure, some people say well "But but but Richard Dawkins!!" To which I, and many other Atheists will respond with "...is an ass."

 

Atheists have faith yes, but no religion.

 

Just because I am a Christian does not mean Christianity should be blamed for my immoral behavior. I am the one that made the choice; I am the only one to blame. End of story.

But neither can it be ignored. And yes this goes both ways, but say there was a 200% jump in crime in some city when a new Satanic cult showed up, now, certainly these people are responsible for their own actions this is true, but that does not mean we should not take into consideration where they got the motivation for their acts. Likewise if we see a spike in Christians beating their children right after a conservative christian chruch published a book called "10 simple steps to beat your child", then we should not ignore what could very well be the source of the problem(this publication, and by extension, the religion that inspired it).

[Darth Avlectus]

Let's just make sure we don't have a preset premise to which we only seek answers to...

[mimartin]

Atheists DO have faith that God does not exist, as the very definition of faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven.

 

Need to turn back the clock in Kavars about a year. You want to post that in the Senate? I disagree, but I also don't care enough to debate.

 

But neither can it be ignored.

Yes, it can. You can not blame all Athiest or Religious people for the actions of a certain subset. So if you have a group performing immoral behavior, personally I would blame each indiviual and the subset before blaming the entire religious community or Athiest community.

[Web Rider]

Need to turn back the clock in Kavars about a year. You want to post that in the Senate? I disagree, but I also don't care enough to debate.

I don't go to the Senate. EVER.

 

Yes, it can. You can not blame all Athiest or Religious people for the actions of a certain subset. So if you have a group performing immoral behavior, personally I would blame each indiviual and the subset before blaming the entire religious community or Athiest community.

 

Which is not what I said and not what I suggested doing. I'll reiterate: If you notice an increase in a certain activity, such as beating children, and it coincides with the publishing of a book that encourages beating children, do you not investigate that book to see if it has any relevance? Likewise, if that book claims to get it's justification from a certain moral or religious background, should not that moral or religious background be considered when looking for causes of the problem?

 

People make their own choices, but that does not change the fact that people are often stupid, desperate, and gullible. Other people often take advantage of this. When it comes to religion, religion is often used by the strong to control the weak. But doing so is difficult when the subject matter does not leave room for such control to exist. In order for somebody to use religion as a tool of control, that religion must have space within it for people to do so.

 

You cannot simply say "Oh they're bad people." and not look and further. If you don't take into account the people, or the systems that are encouraging this behavior in people, you are going to only be dealing with the problem superficially, and therefore never actually solve the problem.

[Jae Onasi]

Just say no...Just abstaining

That is not teaching personal responsibility anymore than blaming it all on society does makes the problem go away, either.

 

Edit: I don't agree with everything the TX panel decided to do with the curricula. However, the author of the Times article is so blatantly biased about it, it's not funny.

[jrrtoken]

However, the author of the Times article is so blatantly biased about it, it's not funny.

Not really; it felt quite neutral, to me, at least. It's difficult not to have a slightly condescending attitude when you see the hard evidence, particularity in this case.

[Totenkopf]

Need to turn back the clock in Kavars about a year. You want to post that in the Senate? I disagree, but I also don't care enough to debate.

 

I don't go to the Senate. EVER.

 

Can't say as that I blame you WR. A lobotomy would be about as enjoyable and probably more productive. Besides, last thing the Senate needs is yet another revival of the God is dead strain of debate.

 

Some of the suggestions listed as changes were NOT unreasonable. Keynsian economics is a bust, so if it's going to be taught, there's no reason the kids shouldn't be taught about Freidman as well and the "free-enterprise" system. If McCarthyism is going to be taught, then the Verona papers should be mentioned as well. Proves McCarthy was right about the threat, but was likely his own worst enemy in presentation. And both faces of the "civil rights" proponents should be examined. I'll reiterate here what I said above, the revolution wasn't some strictly secular movement vs the Brits. The "founding fathers" were comprised of more than just a few cherry picked figures, prominently figuring amongst them Jefferson. I don't advocate leaving him out, either, though.

[mur'phon]

Keynesianism is hardly bust, a lot of the core ideas are still around for good reason (no, staglfation, while important hasn't killed it off). While I have little problem with teaching Hayek and Friedman, given how Adam Smiths ideas have been raped, I'm concerned about how it'll be taught. If they point out facts like Hayeks views on the health care market and Friedmans Chile, I'm all for it, though I doubt that'll happen and we'll end up with the road to serfdom and little else.

 

Atheism might well be a belief, but if so, it's the same kind of belief as not believing that the world is being ruled by mind tricking Gizkas with stealth generators.

[Darth Avlectus]

well...At least someone believes in a balance in Econ. curriculum. (Many professors do not! They only seem to want to teach one or the other and have it measured like heinously-overdone/underdone.)

 

 

I have little problem with revisions just so long as everything AND its flaws are shown.

[mimartin]

Keynsian economics is a bust, so if it's going to be taught, there's no reason the kids shouldn't be taught about Freidman as well and the "free-enterprise" system.

"Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it." While I agree with mur'phon assessment, I would like to point out that studying past mistakes and failures is just as important studying triumphs.

[Totenkopf]

"Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it." While I agree with mur'phon assessment, I would like to point out that studying past mistakes and failures is just as important studying triumphs.

 

Yeah, I wasn't saying they shouldn't be taught that but rather that other views should be taught as well. Although in-depth studies about the vagaries of market or state controlled economies might be better fodder for university level, there's no reason the kids should be introduced to things like capitalism (w/it's successes & failures) with mostly trite epithets about how it sucks.

[Q]

You know, no offense to Evil Q, but I usually take the whole "the schools are trying to brainwash us!" spiel with an ocean of salt but, in this case, I have to completely agree. This is just a blatant attempt to lean kids with manipulated and false information.

It's a lot easier to see when the philosophy being pushed is one that you disagree with.

This is just disgusting if any of this is true.

Yeah, I don't like it when either side does it.

[Web Rider]

It's a lot easier to see when the philosophy being pushed is one that you disagree with.

 

And it's a LOT easier when that philosophy inherently disagrees with the founding concepts of your nation.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I find it sadly humorous that no professionals of the area were spoken to. As if professions like historian and social scientist weren't depreciated enough already. And what's more is that these ammendments are already in work. It's impressive it's even considered serious. Exactly what you get when the people that have actual basis to ponder on these matters aren't around to say when it halts to be a serious study and becomes sheer foolishness.

[Totenkopf]

Problem with professionals is that they are as biased as anyone else, but they have degrees/accredidation for said biases (regardless of their slant). Not saying they shouldn't be included in that kind of discussion, but a degree doesn't necessarily make an individual any wiser or competent than his fellow citizens.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

At least they have a certificate of excellence to back up their opinions and, in the case, defend the current curriculum. Like it or not, that weighs heavily on a reform of this dimension.

 

Also, there may very well be a reason as to why none of said pros were spoken to, if you catch the drift.

[Web Rider]

Problem with professionals is that they are as biased as anyone else, but they have degrees/accredidation for said biases (regardless of their slant). Not saying they shouldn't be included in that kind of discussion, but a degree doesn't necessarily make an individual any wiser or competent than his fellow citizens.

 

Unless you know, you wanted to know the history of Prussia, and you had to choose between asking someone who's degree is in Prussian history, or a baker.

[mimartin]

but a degree doesn't necessarily make an individual any wiser or competent than his fellow citizens.

You are correct it does not make them any wiser or more competent than his/her fellow citizens. However, it usually does make them more knowledgeable about the subject their degree is in. A bartender may just as intelligent and competent as a doctor, but if I need surgery, I’d much rather see the doctor over the bartender. If I want a good drink then I will see the bartender about that.

[Totenkopf]

Unless you know, you wanted to know the history of Prussia, and you had to choose between asking someone who's degree is in Prussian history, or a baker.

 

You are correct it does not make them any wiser or more competent than his/her fellow citizens. However, it usually does make them more knowledgeable about the subject their degree is in. A bartender may just as intelligent and competent as a doctor, but if I need surgery, I’d much rather see the doctor over the bartender. If I want a good drink then I will see the bartender about that.

 

Fair enough, but since textbooks aren't formed on the back of a napkin or matchcover during cocktail hour, and there's this great "new" research tool called the internet (where you can find knowledge and accredited takes on said knowledge), it's kind of moot. Also, like court experts, I'm sure you can buy your academician of choice whereever you can find 'em. But remember, I ALSO said there was no reason to exclude people like that from the process:

Not saying they shouldn't be included in that kind of discussion,

Just be aware of their particular biases when eliciting their judgement.

 

Also, there may very well be a reason as to why none of said pros were spoken to, if you catch the drift.

 

I'm going to go ahead and say "philosophical differences", not malfeasance.