Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Thats great Shuma. Next time you might actually read the articles first. Niether is from Fox.

I was talking about the headliner article from the first post. You know, the one with enough fox news stickers on it to be some 12 year old girls hello kitty fox news crossover lunchbox.

HEY! Just because it's pink doesn't mean a man can't carry that lunchbox too!

rubiksnoob wrote:Einstein was a German immigrant.

Who moved to America, and worked on the Manhattan Project. I think that alone is worth noting about him in American history.

rubiksnoob wrote:So sayeth the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

What does that have to do with what they want? To deny the religious nature of the vast majority of our founders is historical ignorance in the extreme. Even the deists, (Jefferson, and quite possibly Franklin) were quick to attach their principles to Providence, ie God.

rubiksnoob wrote:have these people never heard of separation of church and state?

You mean that thing that isn't Constitutional, but is drawn from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist preacher in Danbury, Connecticut promising him that the state will not interfere with the Church? That one right?

dogma wrote:I'm curious as to how those people who rely on the notion that America is the best will react when China surpasses it in terms of economic might.

By continuing to eat more then they do?

sebster wrote:...there are creationists on the Texas Board fighting to get evolution taught as a theory alongside intelligent design.

That is a major problem...

Ahtman wrote:Jamestown, the first successful colony here was not a religious organization and has just as much to do with the process of the countries origin. The pilgrims were not the first and only religious settlers here but there were one of the most brutal. Their religious freedom was for them alone, just ask the Quakers they strung up. Did religion play a part in the founding? Sure, but no more so then markets, politics, and history.

Indeed they were brutal, but one might argue that their brutality was a reflection of life in that time. More concerning your post though, to use the term "successful" in regards to Jamestown is a very generous use of the word. The men their nearly all died because of extreme stupidity and had to end up resorting to things like cannibalism in order to survive...

ShumaGorath wrote:12 year old girls hello kitty fox news crossover lunchbox

Dude, everyone has school dinners these days. Duh.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Jamestown wasn't the first colony here.

I didn't type that it was the first colony, I said it was the first successful colony. I suppose if I wanted to be even more accurate I would have said English colony, but I perhaps wrongly, assumed that that would be a given since we aren't talking about Brazil and the vikings aren't our progenitors, nationally speaking.

again incorrect. Florida's Spanish colonies were the first permanent ones on the US mainland.

I'm sorry, was the United States formed by ex-Spaniards all of a sudden? Read what I wrote, or stop trolling, whichever is the more accurate. I specifically stated nationally speaking, as in pertaining to the origins of the United States. Perhaps you need a refresher in American history. They were British colonies that revolted against King Goerge and his magnificent wig. It isn't, and has never been about, every voyage to the New World by anyone possible. Jamestown was the first successful British colony in the New World. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact of history.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Jamestown wasn't the first colony here.

I didn't type that it was the first colony, I said it was the first successful colony. I suppose if I wanted to be even more accurate I would have said English colony, but I perhaps wrongly, assumed that that would be a given since we aren't talking about Brazil and the vikings aren't our progenitors, nationally speaking.

again incorrect. Florida's Spanish colonies were the first permanent ones on the US mainland.

I'm sorry, was the United States formed by ex-Spaniards all of a sudden? Read what I wrote, or stop trolling, whichever is the more accurate. I specifically stated nationally speaking, as in pertaining to the origins of the United States. Perhaps you need a refresher in American history. They were British colonies that revolted against King Goerge and his magnificent wig. It isn't, and has never been about, every voyage to the New World by anyone possible. Jamestown was the first successful British colony in the New World. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact of history.

First British colony but not first colony. When you live where the other colonies were there first, you have a different perspective. Its not our fault you were raised by people who started out with a poor diet and didn't have the joy of fine Spanish and French cuisine. We'll forgive you though.

Oh for feths sake read the fething thread. I have pointed out several times we are talking about British colonies because that directly relates to teaching American History in classrooms. We have never been talking about World History. No gak Jamestown wasn't the first god damn colony in the Western Hemisphere, no one has said otherwise. What is your problem today? Forget your glasses at home or something?

Thats not world history. Thats US history. Again, most of the US was started in colonies that weren't Britain. We just have a longer, more balanced view (and better if more fattening food). See its all a matter of perspective.

Moral of the story-mellow out and have some queso. Its good for what ailes ya.

Board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, objected to a standard for a high school sociology course that addressed the difference between sex and gender. It was eliminated in a 9-to-6 vote.

She worried that a discussion of that issue would lead students into the world of "transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else."

Seriously? My god, it seems my theory about poor literacy in the average person is correct. What a joke.

They also polished up references to the American "free enterprise" economic system and removed most mentions of "capitalism," a word that board member Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, said has a negative connotation.

This is a good change, but a hilarious one given the R next to the speaker's name.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not world history. Thats US history. Again, most of the US was started in colonies that weren't Britain. We just have a longer, more balanced view (and better if more fattening food). See its all a matter of perspective.

Moral of the story-mellow out and have some queso. Its good for what ailes ya.

In a conversation pertaining to the relative significance of religion with respect to the founding of the federal state, the one founded by English colonies, the presence of older Spanish colonies in other parts of what would become the nation is irrelevant. As ever, you don't bother to read.

Last time I checked, Florida wasn't a member of the original Thirteen Colonies.

dogma wrote:
Last time I checked, Florida wasn't a member of the original Thirteen Colonies.

Although it's acquisition made for a great spot for the storage of the elderly.

Without Florida, America would have no wang.

dogma wrote:Without Florida, America would have no wang.

Meaning we're either Quasimodo or Texas is our beer belly.

I don;t see what the big deal is. It's not like me or any of my classmates even read the textbook.

Texas, America's beer gut!

RustyKnight wrote:Meaning we're either Quasimodo or Texas is our beer belly.

If Texas is our beer gut, then Maine is our ass.

That also makes Alaska our head, which is nearly empty and strangely detached from our body.

This explains so much.

...just went to edit out a double post and instead got the main.

Course, I guess that makes California our head. Or at least a toupee, but that would make a desert state our head and they're mostly empty! Guess it makes sense.

Greatest thing ever produced by Alaska:



You betcha, caricatures of Sarah Palin!

Tyyr wrote:Gotta point out, this isn't a news story but an opinion piece.

Gotta point out, opinion pieces can still follow poor reasoning and myopic viewpoints, and should be criticised for such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Its not politics. Its a point of view and everyone has one. That point of view, evidently, is partial to determining what is discussed and what isn't. Frankly its a great lesson on the strength of federalism. Texas has what it teaches and its history. If California wants to push a certain viewpoint then it can do so as well.

No. It isn't politics, not when the appointed members are members of and directly funded by political groups.

This isn't about 'you teach your politics to your kids and we'll teach our politics to our kids'. That way lies crap education, and nothing but crap education. It is unacceptable for anyone, on any curriculum board to be there to promote political ideology.

I would like to submit to the discussion the Barbary Treaties signed in Tripoli, circa 1796

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

This is a treaty that was unanimously agreed upon by Congress. I am particularly focusing on Article 11, stating the following:

"ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

Given that this treaty was penned in 1796, I believe that most of the founders of the Constitution had input on its construction.

I will also say that I am Catholic, and so am not some raging Atheist trying to "kill God" or any of the like. I am simply trying to assert the fact that the founding fathers did not wish to have a state connected to any particular church, be it Christian or otherwise.

Yes, the Tripoli Treaty makes many of my debates easy.

But, since the Earth is only 4,000 years old, it doesn't matter.

Accolade wrote:I would like to submit to the discussion the Barbary Treaties signed in Tripoli, circa 1796

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp

This is a treaty that was unanimously agreed upon by Congress. I am particularly focusing on Article 11, stating the following:

"ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

Given that this treaty was penned in 1796, I believe that most of the founders of the Constitution had input on its construction.

I will also say that I am Catholic, and so am not some raging Atheist trying to "kill God" or any of the like. I am simply trying to assert the fact that the founding fathers did not wish to have a state connected to any particular church, be it Christian or otherwise.

Separation of Church and State is fine...when you are all unthinking, unfeeling robots.

The concept in my opinion as to why this doctrine is followed comes from my belief that the founding fathers saw what religion did to government. Given that most of the Founding Fathers were also Prodestant/Agnostic/Followed A Religion in Line with the Former 2 and Anglo-Saxon in influence if not in origin, they had an appreciation for what religion did to America and the British Empire as a whole (see the entire 17th ing century). More to the point, as a nation conscious of the roots of religious intolerance that drove them from Britain and the magnitude to which people invoked religion in their lives, it make sense to try and form an objective viewpoint to the matter.

Making the America government religion blind was a bold move. To say God does not matter to the citizens of the nation despite the fact God is heavily invoked throughout many of the important writings of our politicians and writings is hogwash. I don't denigrate their attempt to fashion a document on the premise of dividing our nation and religion, but the reality is that it was hard to do in 18th and 19th century America.

I should say separation of the Church and State is essential because people are not unthinking, unfeeling robots.

Any direction of religion by the government is bound to result in different kinds of discrimination along religious lines being enshrined in law.

The people should be at liberty to follow whichever religion they like in their personal lives.

WarOne wrote:The concept in my opinion as to why this doctrine is followed comes from my belief that the founding fathers saw what religion did to government. Given that most of the Founding Fathers were also Prodestant/Agnostic/Followed A Religion in Line with the Former 2 and Anglo-Saxon in influence if not in origin, they had an appreciation for what religion did to America and the British Empire as a whole (see the entire 17th ing century). More to the point, as a nation conscious of the roots of religious intolerance that drove them from Britain and the magnitude to which people invoked religion in their lives, it make sense to try and form an objective viewpoint to the matter.

Making the America government religion blind was a bold move. To say God does not matter to the citizens of the nation despite the fact God is heavily invoked throughout many of the important writings of our politicians and writings is hogwash. I don't denigrate their attempt to fashion a document on the premise of dividing our nation and religion, but the reality is that it was hard to do in 18th and 19th century America.

There is a difference between private consideration of religion to form moral views which in turn help form your political beliefs, and directly and publically connecting religion and politics.

Politics is a pragmatist's game, you have to balance what's right with what's achievable, and religion brings ideology and ideology is not pragmatic. In keeping that formal level of seperation between religion and politics you get a filter, a check where religious beliefs on an issue might be checked - your religion might believe homosexuality is a sin, but you then need to consider if it's something government should care about, for instance.

Perhaps more importantly, it's bad for religion. Politics is a corrupting game, and to get things done you have to side with people you don't agree with on all that much at times. If your religion is your politics, to make anything work it's likely you'll start altering your religion to fit your politics. Look at the how religious right in the US has absorbed the low taxes, minimal social support politics of the economic right.

I think the change is fine.

The children of immigrants are the only students that pay attention in school. How else do you explain all the foreign originating doctors, engineers, lawyers and physicists?

By putting a more patriotic spin on our textbooks we're promoting an image of American awesomeness so those students can later on persuade their foreign relatives to immigrate. So we get more professionals. It's like advertisement. I predict these textbooks will actually increase the average intelligence of the American workforce.

The Notorious JEB wrote:Indeed they were brutal, but one might argue that their brutality was a reflection of life in that time.

It isn't a value judgment on them so much as recognition that they weren't a bunch of freedom loving hippies wanting to hold hands with everyone sing "kumbaya", which is often how they come across in Elementary, Jr High, and High School textbooks.

The Notorious JEB wrote:More concerning your post though, to use the term "successful" in regards to Jamestown is a very generous use of the word. The men their nearly all died because of extreme stupidity and had to end up resorting to things like cannibalism in order to survive...

Since when has success meant a lack of adversity? Yeah it was rough as hell but when the boats came back from England Jamestown was still there and is still here today.

Ahtman wrote:Since when has success meant a lack of adversity? Yeah it was rough as hell but when the boats came back from England Jamestown was still there and is still here today.

Notorious eh? On topic though, let me further clarify my point: It was successful in that it merely managed to eke out an existence, that is until tobacco became so profitable, whereas the Pilgrims were much more dedicated to building a settlement. The horrors of Jamestown were such that I would find the word meager in front of success, but now its an issue of description.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Since when has success meant a lack of adversity? Yeah it was rough as hell but when the boats came back from England Jamestown was still there and is still here today.

Notorious eh? On topic though, let me further clarify my point: It was successful in that it merely managed to eke out an existence, that is until tobacco became so profitable, whereas the Pilgrims were much more dedicated to building a settlement. The horrors of Jamestown were such that I would find the word meager in front of success, but now its an issue of description.

Compared to Roanoake it was a rousing success. Success doesn't always mean monetary success. In the case of Jamestown the success was in the fact that, as tough as it was, they did indeed survive and eventually flourish.