DescentBB

Kilarin wrote:Yes, the left HAS been trying to use the public schools as a social engineering project. So has the right. It's horribly wrong in both cases, but it's also inevitable. You can't teach Social Studies, History, Government, or many other similar classes without injecting a point of view. The best text books strive for neutrality and come close, the worst ones don't even try...

The Texas school board is the equivalent of a 10 man rubber boat full of Somali pirates pulling along side the U.S.S. Liberal Agenda....sure once in a while they even take a ship hostage for a few days but ultimately the liberals own the ocean.

So teaching evolution in school is a Liberal agenda.
Just so i've got this right.
Teaching accurate facts in school is a Liberal agenda.

If you want to be sure you've \"got this right\" you might try sticking to what we've actually said. Rather than introducing a new element as a gotcha so that you can shove the conservatives back in the box you have for them.

I don't think Evolution ought to be taught at all, because I think it's full of holes (which is its legacy). How's that?

roid wrote:So teaching evolution in school is a Liberal agenda.
Just so i've got this right.
Teaching accurate facts in school is a Liberal agenda.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself there.
Evolution is a THEORY, just like the existence of a God is also a THEORY. They SHOULD teach evolution in schools because it is a pretty dang good theory, but just a theory.

If monkeys evolved into humans, then why are monkeys still around?

...

First, Science doesn't work that way.
http://www.google.com/search?q=just+a+theory

Second, Evolution doesn't work that way
http://www.google.com/search?q=why%20ar ... l%20around

So just so I got this right. Are you saying evolution is now a fact and no longer a theory?

Insurrectionist wrote:So just so I got this right. Are you saying evolution is now a fact and no longer a theory?

roid wrote:So teaching evolution in school is a Liberal agenda.
Just so i've got this right.
Teaching accurate facts in school is a Liberal agenda.

that's what he's saying. Obviously Ignoring the FACTS

The word “theory” in this context means “explanation” problem is…the omission of the word “possible”. The theory is full of small facts, but the rest is still extrapolation.

So it becomes an assumed “fact”.

roid wrote:So teaching evolution in school is a Liberal agenda.
Just so i've got this right.
Teaching accurate facts in school is a Liberal agenda.

No, evolution is the best science has to offer for an explanation of how it works. So it should be taught. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that creation is another theory born from christian religion. After all, it is perfectly acceptable to liberals running the schools to tell our children to wear traditional Islamic clothing to get in touch with the Muslims right? So there shouldn't be a problem with throwing an honorable mention to the religious group that predominates our society.
Oh...wait....we can't allow that since the Christian organizations tend to give their support to the republicans!!! All democrat run organizations must degrade republican supporters as a matter of practice regardless of the facts thus the removal of positive Reagan references from textbooks, thus the incorrect lessons about how we have a democratic government instead of telling the truth that it is a representative republic....

I guarantee you if Christians voted primarily for democrats there wouldn't be any problem with a little god here and there inside liberal institutions. In fact Nancy Pelosi would be wearing a great big crucifix and a pope's hat at every news conference!

Here's a little fun fact for everyone:
If you continue to shape your positions so they will be compatible with one party or the other then you are full of ★■◆●. As long as the majority of voters choose to do that we get all these problems of dirty self serving politics spilling over into our real lives.
Free yourselves from seeing things through the Party prism and look again.

Carl Sagan wrote:Often, the leaders and practitioners of absolutist religions were unable to perceive any middle ground or recognize that the truth might draw upon and embrace apparently contradictory doctrines.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: The Christian doctrine, for instance, is not contradictory only on an apparent level. It is as contradictory as claiming Christ to be the only way to God.

I interpreted what Sagan was saying here as "different people might embrace contradictory doctrines as the truth". Which is, obviously, very true.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Kilarin wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A lot of people just seem not to want Christianity to have any representation unless it's willing to leave its convictions at church

Yep, and keeping a high wall of separation between church and state is one of the best ways of defending against them.

Makes no sense...

How does it not make sense? The point is that the government has no right to interfere in your freedom of conscience. The government should not regulate how people think. This protects both sides. It protects those who want to speak out against Christianity, and it protects Christians who want to express their religion. The wall of separation between church and state creates a free market place of IDEAS, just like capitalism creates a free market economy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So out of fear that it might be turned around on us shall we accept that a-moral activity and agendas are simply the practicing of differing world-views? I've never even begun to think that we should somehow outlaw being unChristian, so I can't make sense of your concerns here. Did you know that certain behaviors are unacceptable apart from Christianity, even though Christianity is one of the only remaining world-views that discerns them as such?

Your statements seem contradictory here. Which "behaviors" do you wish to outlaw as unacceptable?

The government can really only morality that falls into the "don't harm others" category. I believe that sex outside of marriage is WRONG. Not just wrong for Christians, wrong for everyone. But when the government starts enforcing rules like that, it is becoming the enforcer of conscience. And where does that stop? Next week do we outlaw the liberal branch of the Episcopal church because they support homosexuality?

Unless you are harming someone else, you should be free to believe, and even act, as you wish. It's not just that such rules protect US, it's that they are right. You can not force people to believe.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You almost seem to live in a separate reality where Christianity and morality are not under attack and subject to clever erosion.

You are mistaking two different issues. I believe that both Christianity and morality are under serious attack. I also believe that one of the most dangerous attacks against them both is government involvement in matters of conscience.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I accept people's right to live according to their conscience, but I do not accept the right of people who have no conscience to live in this society without limits doing whatever gives them pleasure (this is not meant as hyperbole, and applies specifically to such things as aborting a child for convenience, homosexuality, transsexuality, pedophilia, ...).

You accept people's right to live according to their conscience, just as long as they don't gross you out too much? Let's seperate the issues you mention into two groups:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:aborting a child for convenience, pedophilia

These both involve the question of harm to another. That makes them clearly fall into the area of government oversight.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:homosexuality, transsexuality, sex outside of marriage

But these are quite different. You and I would agree that these acts are immoral, and therefore harmful, but that is a matter of conscience and not direct harm. The government has no business telling consenting adults how they can and can not have sex. What limits would you place on these people? For example, if you decide that it should be against the law for parents to teach their children that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, then you have set the precedent that it is the governments job to regulate how children are taught about sex and sexuality. Those who believe sex belongs strictly within marriage are in the minority right now, and I don't see that group growing any bigger anytime soon. How long until a liberal administration turns this around on you and makes it illegal to teach your children that they should remain abstinant until marriage?

This comes right back to the issue above where I said that keeping the wall of separation between church and state strong defends Christians against those who would like to wipe it out. The government is no good at regulating matters of conscience, and if we let it regulate them from a conservative point of view, sooner or later the liberals will be back in charge and they will overturn those same regulations and turn them right back the other way.

Free marketplace of ideas. Let everyone have their say, and keep the government out of it.

Will Robinson wrote:The Texas school board is the equivalent of a 10 man rubber boat full of Somali pirates pulling along side the U.S.S. Liberal Agenda....sure once in a while they even take a ship hostage for a few days but ultimately the liberals own the ocean.

I don't disagree, but it's still wrong.

roid wrote:So teaching evolution in school is a Liberal agenda.
Just so i've got this right.
Teaching accurate facts in school is a Liberal agenda.

There is certainly an agenda there, but lets just bypass the evolution point for now. We've debated that one to death multiple times. There are plenty of examples of liberal social engineering in our schools outside of science. You CANT teach without teaching from a point of view.

Xamindar wrote:Evolution is a THEORY

When laymen say this, they aren't understanding what Science means by a theory. For example, Newton's theory of gravity is just a THEORY. It's a theory with holes in it. But that doesn't mean you should go jump off a building.

Will Robinson wrote:Free yourselves from seeing things through the Party prism and look again.

Amen!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Are you in a uniquely herbal state? It only makes no sense when you try to say it! If someone believes that the world should be a certain way they could campaign, write books, give speeches, but of course cutting to the chase and teaching it to the next generation would be a ridiculous notion, right? It's a highly effective way of changing the world, is what it is. One of the ways it can most easily be described is as a monopoly. For whatever reason (and I believe some of it is sinister in its lack of respect for our views and our consciences) either progressivism is hugely popular with people in the education scene, or the education scene is hugely popular with progressives. Either way it's what children all over the U.S. are learning and it is a retarded (literally) world-view. It distorts whatever it deals with.

you know what else was progressive? finding out the earth is round, that the earth orbits the sun, creating the library and interstate systems, not treating blacks and the Chinese as second-class citizens, etc. yep, "progressivism" is something to be feared alright.

and this whole notion that politicians are using schools to campaign and change students' worldview is ridiculous at best.

Ferno wrote:and this whole notion that politicians are using schools to campaign and change students' worldview is ridiculous at best.

Your right thats why we have things going on like this

9. Requests the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization to continue to coordinate actions in support of tolerance
promotion and education in partnership with other United Nations agencies and
regional, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and to make
reports available to the General Assembly on a biennial basis on the
implementation of the Declaration of Principles and the Follow-up Plan of
Action;

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ ... penElement

Nothing to do with politicians using schools to campaign and change students' world views.

Kilarin wrote:

Xamindar wrote:Evolution is a THEORY

When laymen say this, they aren't understanding what Science means by a theory. For example, Newton's theory of gravity is just a THEORY. It's a theory with holes in it. But that doesn't mean you should go jump off a building.

Newton's law of gravitation
n
principle governing force between masses: the principle that any two particles attract each other with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation

Newton's laws of motion
npl
three principles describing motion of objects: three fundamental principles describing the motion of objects moving at speeds that are not comparable with the speed of light

………………..

Evolution
n
1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.


I don’t know what the problem is here, but Newton’s “theorys” seem to be called “laws” whereas “evolution” has in its definition only the words theory and theoretical.

So maybe the problem “is” a matter of semantics, but the average person can’t be faulted for “not understanding”.

And before you give me a lecture, please try and understand the point I’m trying to make here.

Well yeah i guess we should understand people can be manipulated with regard to this stuff.

But that's not to excuse the Creationist organisations such as \"The Discovery Institute\" who willfully and dishonestly manipulate people - preying on their ignorance.

We should do all we can to fight against these forces.
Which is essentially what this thread is all about - fighting against the forces of ignorance and dishonesty.
Here are your weapons, they're not bad eh?: education, knowledge, and science.

Ferno wrote:you know what else was progressive? ... not treating blacks and the Chinese as second-class citizens, etc.

From what I've heard it was the democratic/liberal party that resisted the equal treatment of black Americans (don't know about Chinese). I don't know about the rest there, but I doubt it's somehow uniquely progressive.

Ferno wrote:and this whole notion that politicians are using schools to campaign and change students' worldview is ridiculous at best.

You can't let go of "politicians" can you? That's just not at all what I'm saying, let it go!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm not talking about a political party brainwashing students, I'm talking about the social movement (for lack of a better word) behind the political movement being involved in teaching this nation's children what to think ...

.

Oh, That's just rich! I don't know WHY Texas has so much influence on the content of the whole nation's textbooks! BAH! We need print on demand for the rest of us in this country since we're not ALL religious fanatics out here! They're even scrubbing out the major influence Martin Luther King had on the Civil Rights Movement! I mean, HE WAS the Civil Rights Movement! I smell southern racism at work in rewriting history.

tunnelcat wrote:I smell southern racism at work in rewriting history.

thats your feet your smelling.

Sure blame whitey, not people like Jackson, Sharpton, Farakahn, the NAACP, or the Black Panthers. its all whiteys fault.

Bet51987 wrote:Click on the chart. Now I know what happened to George Bush.

http://www.texastribune.org/stories/201 ... intstones/#

Bee

You don't know, I don't know, human-kind'll never know.

Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.


Guess what nearly a 3rd of me wants to say something about THIS! The other half is telling me to STFU.

Yea I'll STFU on this one. Bury yourself.

Are you saying that you're not all there? (AlphaDog = nearly 1/3 + 1/2)

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I smell southern racism at work in rewriting history.

thats your feet your smelling.

Sure blame whitey, not people like Jackson, Sharpton, Farakahn, the NAACP, or the Black Panthers. its all whiteys fault.

Lets see, who's rewriting history to whitewash (pun) the Civil Rights Movement and marginalize King, one of it's major NON-VIOLENT leaders? Hmmmmmmmmmm....no surprise, WHITE PEOPLE who either don't have a clue or are trying to buff their checkered image in U.S. history for how blacks were treated by whites back then. I DO blame whites! If it struck a nerve in you, it must bother you too, only for the wrong reasons. You'll notice that it IS white southerners who are doing the rewriting! That's happening with Senator McCarthy in all this textbook updating too. Buffing up all his historical witch hunting crap as patriotism! BULL!!!!

back then, back THEN. ya know. I have a couple of liberal friends and they constantly bemoan the fact that \"The white man\" treated this group poorly or that group worse.

Sure that happened. but what are we going to do about it NOW? Cuda is talking about NOW. The democratic part uses the minorities as their poster children and sings them a love song. They get these groups Dependant on assistance, KEEP them there, crap on them and then say \"aren't we wonderful?\" They enable NO ONE. Then again, that isn't the governments job. People seem to forget that.

And the last time I checked, the Democratic party have folks of all color.

Let us not forget that Dr. King was a true radical.

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2010/ ... l-dr-king/

tunnelcat wrote:...You'll notice that it IS white southerners who are doing the rewriting! That's happening with Senator McCarthy in all this textbook updating too. Buffing up all his historical witch hunting crap as patriotism! BULL!!!!

I don't know about you but for me insisting the history books include the fact that we later learned that the communists had infiltrated our ranks in large numbers as McCarthy claimed is not rewriting history so much as filling in a blank. It's not like the results of McCarthy's tactics are being erased. The only people who should be unhappy with that addition to the books are those concerned with the communists reputation.

tunnelcat wrote:I DO blame whites!

I tried to think of something else to say, but all my brainpower went to calling you an ignorant ass. Racism? You're the one calling out the colors...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ferno wrote:you know what else was progressive? ... not treating blacks and the Chinese as second-class citizens, etc.

From what I've heard it was the democratic/liberal party that resisted the equal treatment of black Americans (don't know about Chinese). I don't know about the rest there, but I doubt it's somehow uniquely progressive.

ummm maybe you should use the entire passage before you quote me. I can't help but now think you enjoy cherry-picking, which would explain a lot.

If you read your history, you would find that the church thought Galileo was a heretic for his beliefs and promptly burned him at the stake. Simply because he stated that the earth revolved around the sun.

And you would also find that people believed that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed too far out.

Both the explorer and the astronomer proved perceived beliefs wrong and progressed humanity forward.

I'm sure you can do your own research on why the library and interstate system came to be.

You can't let go of "politicians" can you? That's just not at all what I'm saying, let it go!

what.. let go of treating both sides the same and calling it what it is? okay, I'll get right on that.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm not talking about a political party brainwashing students, I'm talking about the social movement (for lack of a better word) behind the political movement being involved in teaching this nation's children what to think ...

Where did you learn how to speak out of both sides of your mouth? do you even know you're being hypocritical and self-deceptive here?

Ferno wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Ferno wrote:you know what else was progressive? ... not treating blacks and the Chinese as second-class citizens, etc.

From what I've heard it was the democratic/liberal party that resisted the equal treatment of black Americans (don't know about Chinese). I don't know about the rest there, but I doubt it's somehow uniquely progressive.

ummm maybe you should use the entire passage before you quote me. I can't help but now think you enjoy cherry-picking, which would explain a lot.

My quote was perfectly um... legal, for lack of a better word. Unless I misunderstood you in what appeared to be a pretty simple statement. If there is a misunderstanding here, you're only perpetuating it by jumping to conclusions regarding my reply.

Ferno wrote:If you read your history, you would find that the church thought Galileo was a heretic for his beliefs and promptly burned him at the stake. Simply because he stated that the earth revolved around the sun.

And you would also find that people believed that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth if he sailed too far out.

Both the explorer and the astronomer proved perceived beliefs wrong and progressed humanity forward.

Have you ever wondered if maybe Evolutionary Theory could be the present-day "perceived belief"?

Ferno wrote:I'm sure you can do your own research on why the library and interstate system came to be.

I'm sure that would be fascinating, if I ever have time to waste on something that has, according to your usual posting style, only barely been dangled in front of me in a very vague manner.

Ferno wrote:what.. let go of treating both sides the same and calling it what it is? okay, I'll get right on that.

Are you talking about both sides as in Dems and Repubs? If that's the case you're way out in left field and I'm no longer even following you. I was talking about a social movement that happens to have a great degree of political influence also, not simply a political entity somehow managing to totally manipulate the population.

Ferno wrote:Where did you learn how to speak out of both sides of your mouth? do you even know you're being hypocritical and self-deceptive here?

Do you? I think your communication skills need serious work.

Ferno wrote:If you read your history, you would find that the church thought Galileo was a heretic for his beliefs and promptly burned him at the stake. Simply because he stated that the earth revolved around the sun

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA....

Spidey wrote:

Ferno wrote:If you read your history, you would find that the church thought Galileo was a heretic for his beliefs and promptly burned him at the stake. Simply because he stated that the earth revolved around the sun

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA....

2x

since history says Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633. Because of his age and poor health, he was allowed to serve his imprisonment under house arrest. Galileo died on January 8, 1642.

heh apparently Ferny didn't read history.

CUDA wrote:heh apparently Ferny didn't read history.

Maybe he just reads the progressive history.

Insurrectionist wrote:

CUDA wrote:heh apparently Ferny didn't read history.

Maybe he just reads the progressive history.

you mean the History written by WHITE SOUTHERNERS????

Spidey wrote:I don't know what the problem is here, but Newton's "theorys" seem to be called "laws" whereas "evolution" has in its definition only the words theory and theoretical. So maybe the problem "is" a matter of semantics, but the average person can't be faulted for "not understanding". And before you give me a lecture, please try and understand the point I'm trying to make here.

No lecture! As you said, it makes perfect SENSE that this issue is confusing people. It's a matter of miscommunication. My only point was that it's an argument that those opposed to Evolution are better off not using. It doesn't help, it just makes the other side annoyed because they then think you don't understand what they are talking about.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...You'll notice that it IS white southerners who are doing the rewriting! That's happening with Senator McCarthy in all this textbook updating too. Buffing up all his historical witch hunting crap as patriotism! BULL!!!!

I don't know about you but for me insisting the history books include the fact that we later learned that the communists had infiltrated our ranks in large numbers as McCarthy claimed is not rewriting history so much as filling in a blank. It's not like the results of McCarthy's tactics are being erased. The only people who should be unhappy with that addition to the books are those concerned with the communists reputation.

So? There were a lot of Communists in this country in all aspects of life back then and STILL ARE. I even worked with an open commie in my workplace years ago, but I sure didn't follow or condone his philosophy. And yes, it's good that history will show that some WERE Communists, big fat hairy deal. But not ALL those who were victims of McCarty's witch hunts were Communists and they still had they're lives ruined. Some were only guilty of being, gasp, liberal! I seriously doubt that those Texas history books will mention that little factoid. And why the hell did the government waste money going after a political segment of our society OUTSIDE of the government? It's not like Communists would EVER have a snowball's chance in hell of taking over the good ole' U.S.A. anyway, judging from all the crazy right wingers we have screaming at our politicians while carrying their guns.

SilverFJ wrote:I tried to think of something else to say, but all my brainpower went to calling you an ignorant ass. Racism? You're the one calling out the colors...

What, you don't like the sordid history of white on black racism and just want to sweep it under the rug? And you call me ignorant.

I went to Little Saigon in Seattle, tried to get directions from about 30 people, most of whom knew english but told me to screw off instead with dirty looks.

I went to San Diego and every taco stand I bought food with sneered at me and then gave me that \"Haha I spit in your carne asada white boy\" look.

I went to St. Louis and nearly* got jumped 4 times, without the blacks even trying to rob me. There was plenty of \"cracker ass\" and \"honkey\" though.

(*Go ahead, tell me guns aren't great.)


NOW, there's about 1 black guy in my home town. He's always treated with decency, attracts friends like bees to honey, ploughs through our women, always the life of a party.










who's racist?
Whites are the biggest racial target in America, and I'm about sick of the Hitler image, like other colors have some right to act like that 'cause of what happened before I was born.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:...
I don't know about you but for me insisting the history books include the fact that .....

It's not like the results of McCarthy's tactics are being erased......

... But not ALL those who were victims of McCarty's witch hunts were Communists and they still had they're lives ruined. Some were only guilty of being, gasp, liberal! I seriously doubt that those Texas history books will mention that little factoid....

So in spite of the actual content of my post(or the Texas School boards announced intent) you just replace that with your 'serious doubts'(fears) and then rail against that. How can anyone have a discussion with you when you don't listen and instead assign your own imagined fears to them to try and defend?!?
How about we read the books when they are published and see if you are Chicken Little or Paul Revere....

White on black racism has been around a long time but time changes and racism marches on

Like albophobia is on the rise

If Whites appear to be a victimless majority, this is only because anti-white crimes are under-reported in the media and because whites are the largest racial group in the US, However, with 9 346 victims of anti-white violence between 1995 and 2002, whites are the second most targetted group for the racial & ethnic categories combined. there are more hate crimes against whites than against Hispanics, American-Indians, Asian and Multiple race groups. Whites are also the racial & ethnic group the most frequently targetted for inter-racial crimes.

source= http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06.htm

I guess we have to learn how to be professional victims.