Weddingbee boards

To me, this is just another sad example of bipartisanism/our 2 party system. We need more than 2 parties, so our political system can stop being seen as "either Republican or Democrat"--neither one is perfect! We need to stop pitting them against each other and stop looking at issues in terms of party lines, and start looking at whether a particular bill/vote/etc actually helps the issues at hand. People get so caught up in voting for or against a certain party that they lose sight of what the real issues/solutions are.

i think that sometimes we forget that without all of the freedoms that our country provides us that the religious folks might not be able to practice they way they do. So putting all of this clearly religious / politically charged information in PUBLIC school textbooks is just the worst idea. Separation of church and state is best for EVERYONE - I just wish everyone thought so!  Our children need to learn more in school and shouldn't be clouded with all this. We need to improve our education standards to get more competitive on the world stage. We're not going to do that with busted textbooks, that's for sure. And all of these standardized tests! ahhhh. I could ramble for hours.

i agree with your points, mrsmdphd - when you think about the population of the state, it's even worse that it's gone on such a conservative path.  One good thing i'll say about this textbook thing is that it's gotten a LOT of media attention. I hope that the spotlight is on them for the rest of this process. I wonder what outsiders can do in this situation - though I'm not a texas resident or have children, it's very scary that 10 years of children in one of the big states are getting that kind of education. That's a big part of our population that is contributing to electing national figures.

@monita - Did we go to the same school?  Our AP Bio teacher barely touched on it..  But I think she liked her 100% pass rate just enough to ensure that we all had at least a vague idea of what was going on.

What bothers me most, I think, is the blatant misrepresentation of the founders' religious beliefs (or lack thereof).  Some were Christian, true, but most of the big names were pretty much wandering around in atheist or deist territory and viewed organized religion with some suspicion.

@hsirrapyesdnil - My best friend is a teacher, and she reports having the same sorts of problems.  Parents complain to the administration and teachers end up being censored.

This whole thing makes me sick. Look at some of the changes being proposed:

- A greater emphasis on “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s.” This means not only increased favorable mentions of Schlafly, the founder of the antifeminist Eagle Forum, but also more discussion of the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

- A reduced scope for Latino history and culture. A proposal to expand such material in recognition of Texas’ rapidly growing Hispanic population was defeated in last week’s meetings—provoking one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out in protest. "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don’t exist," she said of her conservative colleagues on the board. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."

- Changes in specific terminology. Terms that the board’s conservative majority felt were ideologically loaded are being retired. Hence, “imperialism” as a characterization of America’s modern rise to world power is giving way to “expansionism,” and “capitalism” is being dropped in economic material, in favor of the more positive expression “free market.” (The new recommendations stress the need for favorable depictions of America’s economic superiority across the board.)

- A more positive portrayal of Cold War anticommunism. Disgraced anticommunist crusader Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator censured by the Senate for his aggressive targeting of individual citizens and their civil liberties on the basis of their purported ties to the Communist Party, comes in for partial rehabilitation. The board recommends that textbooks refer to documents published since McCarthy’s death and the fall of the Soviet bloc that appear to show expansive Soviet designs to undermine the U.S. government.

- Language that qualifies the legacy of 1960s liberalism. Great Society programs such as Title IX—which provides for equal gender access to educational resources—and affirmative action, intended to remedy historic workplace discrimination against African-Americans, are said to have created adverse “unintended consequences” in the curriculum’s preferred language.

- Thomas Jefferson no longer included among writers influencing the nation’s intellectual origins. Jefferson, a deist who helped pioneer the legal theory of the separation of church and state, is not a model founder in the board’s judgment. Among the intellectual forerunners to be highlighted in Jefferson’s place: medieval Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, Puritan theologian John Calvin and conservative British law scholar William Blackstone. Heavy emphasis is also to be placed on the founding fathers having been guided by strict Christian beliefs.

- Excision of recent third-party presidential candidates Ralph Nader (from the left) and Ross Perot (from the centrist Reform Party). Meanwhile, the recommendations include an entry listing Confederate General Stonewall Jackson as a role model for effective leadership, and a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis accompanying a speech by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

- A recommendation to include country and western music among the nation’s important cultural movements. The popular black genre of hip-hop is being dropped from the same list.

Source

@ejs - regarding your conversation with your father about why are WE right? I think that this step is so important! When you really break it down, aren't most religions pretty similar anyway? I think that if one can have a dialogue like this and still come to the same conclusions after hearing multiple points of view, that it could only strengthen their religious beliefs. So why is it that people are so fearful of hearing different points of view?