Kelly

While I don't agree with Herb's voting tactics, I do agree that creationism teaching religious conservatives are more dangerous than Obama care. It's one thing to stifle motivation and socialize medicine, it's another thing altogether to deny science outright, and leave things to god. There are many western countries that have socialized medicine, and while that Is not an optimal policy, there is still science and progress.

Yep, there was still science and progress in Nazi Germany too even though genocide wasn't "optimal policy" either.

--Brant

reductio!

I missed this one earlier. Charming.I kinda forgot what it was like to argue with objectivists. Thanks for jogging my memory.

.... to know that the founding was a truly religious experience and that they intended for the country to be based on the 10 commandments, hell even Sarah Palin thinks so.

Kelly,

Do you have a source for your allegation of Palin's views? Like a statement from her? I know she believes in the 10 Commandments. but I have never her her claim that the Founding Fathers "intended for the country to be based on" them. That is, if by "country," you mean the government. If by "country," you mean she thinks it is a good idea for people to adopt the 10 Commandments, and that the people who founded the country believed in them, that is another issue.

Also, the "founding was a truly religious experience" is accurate if you use the "rights come from God" standard that was used at the time. But it was not a religious experience in the manner of a modern Christian being saved kind of experience. It was a stewardship of God's creation self-responsibility--a stepping up to the plate as individuals and doing it so God would not have to intervene--kind of religious experience. (Just so you know, I am not religious.)

About Palin, have you thought this through on the level I mentioned, or or are you merely repeating opinions of other people who like to opine and dislike Palin?

btw - I don't just dislike the progressive media hype machine. I dislike ALL media hype machines.

I merely bashed the progressive one because that's the source you used. Had you used a source of conservative hype, I would have bashed the conservative media hype machine.

The person who best characterized the stuff I dislike about hype machines was Michael Crichton. Here is a quote from another thread I posted back in 2007:

State of Fear

I am starting this thread to discuss a syndrome I found in the book State of Fear by Michael Crichton. I am probably pushing the limits of fair use, but this is very important. I broke it up to make up for the length and I hope this use sells more books for the author and publisher. Please buy the book. It is worth every cent.

The excerpt speaks for itself. The quote is from a crazy professor-almost-prophet type (Hoffman) who showed up suddenly and the hero (Evans). Hoffman starts. (pp. 453-459)

"If you study the media, as my graduate students and I do, seeking to find shifts in normative conceptualization, you discover something extremely interesting. We looked at transcripts of news programs of the major networks—NBC, ABC, CBS. We also looked at stories in the newspapers of New York, Washington, Miami, Los Angeles, and Seattle. We counted the frequency of certain concepts in terms used by the media. The results are very striking." He paused.

"What did you find?" Evans said, taking his cue.

"There was a major shift in the fall of 1989. Before that time, the media did not make excessive use of terms such as crisis, catastrophe, cataclysm, plague, or disaster. For example during the 1980s, the word crisis appeared in news reports about as often as the word budget. In addition, prior to 1989, adjectives such as dire, unprecedented, dreaded were not common in television reports or newspaper headlines. But then it all changed."

"In what way?"

"These terms started to become more and more common. The word catastrophe was used five times more often in 1995 than it was in 1985. It is doubled again by the year 2000. And the stories changed, too. There was a heightened emphasis on feat, worry, danger, uncertainty, panic."

"Why should it have changed in 1989?"

. . .

"At first we thought the association was spurious. But it wasn't. The Berlin Wall marks the collapse of the Soviet empire. And the end of the Cold War that had lasted for half a century in the West."

. . .

"I am a leading to the notion of social control, Peter. To the requirement of every sovereign state to exert control over the behavior of its citizens, to keep them orderly and reasonably docile. To keep them driving on the right side of the road—or the left, as the case may be. To keep them paying taxes. And of course we know that social control is best managed through fear.

"Fear," Evans said.

"Exactly. For fifty years, Western nations had maintained their citizens in the state of perpetual fear. Fear of the other side. Fear of nuclear war. The Communist menace. The Iron Curtain. The Evil Empire. And within the Communist countries, the same in reverse. Fear of us. Then, suddenly, in the fall of 1989, it was all finished. Gone, vanished. Over. The fall of the Berlin Wall created a vacuum of fear. Nature abhors a vacuum. Something had to fill it."

Evans frowned. "You're saying that environmental crisis took the place of the Cold War?"

"That is what the evidence shows. Of course, now we have radical fundamentalism and post-9/11 terrorism to make us afraid, and those are certainly real reasons for fear, but that is not my point. My point is, there is always a cause for fear. The cause may change over time, but the fear is always with us. Before terrorism we feared the toxic environment. Before that we had the Communist menace. The point is, although the specific cause of our fear may change, we are never without the fear itself. Here pervades society in all its aspects. Perpetually."

He shifted on the concrete bench, turning away from the crowds.

"Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, of disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can't even see—germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like to believe in witchcraft, it's an extraordinary delusion—a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must live in fear. Amazing.

"How has this world view been instilled in everybody? Because although we imagine we live in different nations—France, Germany, Japan, the US—in fact, we inhabit exactly the same state, the State of Fear. How has that been accomplished?"

Evans said nothing. He knew it wasn't necessary.

"Well, I shall tell you how," he said. "In the old days—before your time, Peter—citizens of the West believed their nation-states were dominated by something called the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower warned Americans against it and the 1960s, and after two world wars Europeans knew very well what it meant in their own countries. But the military-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society. In reality, for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population—under the guise of promoting safety."

"Safety is important."

"Please. Western nations are fabulously safe. Yet people do not feel they are, because of the PLM. And the PLM is powerful and stable, precisely because it unites so many institutions of society. Politicians need fears to control the population. Lawyers need dangers to litigate, and make money. The media needs scare stories to capture an audience. Together, these three estates are so compelling that they can go about their business even if the scare is totally groundless. If it has no basis in fact at all."

. . .

At the very least, we are talking about a moral outrage. Thus we can expect our religious leaders and our great humanitarian figures to cry out against this waste and the needless deaths around the world that results. But do any religious leaders speak out? No. Quite the contrary, they join the chorus. They promote 'What Would Jesus Drive?' As if they have forgotten that what Jesus would drive is the false prophets and fearmongers out of the temple."

He was getting quite heated now.

"What we're talking about is a situation that is profoundly immoral. It is disgusting, if truth be told. The PLM callously ignores the plight of the poorest and most desperate human beings on our planet in order to keep fat politicians in office, rich news anchors on the air, and conniving lawyers in Mercedes-Benz convertibles. Oh, and our university professors in Volvos. Let's not forget them."

. . .

"What happened," he continued, "is the universities transformed themselves in the 1980s. Formerly bastions of intellectual freedom in a world of Babbittry, formerly the locus of sexual freedom and experimentation, they now became the most restrictive environments in modern society. Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and all the new social anxieties. All the new respective codes. Words you can't say. Thoughts you can't think. They produce a steady stream of new anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters. Foods that are bad for you. behaviors that are unacceptable. Can't smoke, can't swear, can't screw, can't think. These institutions have been stood on their heads in a generation. It is really quite extraordinary.

"The modern State of Fear could never exist without universities feeding it. There is a peculiar neo-Stalinist mode of thought that is required to support all this, and it can thrive only in a restricted setting, behind closed doors, without due process. And our society, only universities have created that—so far. The notion that these institutions are liberal is a cruel joke. They're fascist to the core, I'm telling you."

That is the enemy. Not the conservative versus liberal smokescreen.

Unfortunately, there is some righteous manipulation of actual human nature at the core. So that makes this a tougher enemy than it should be.

Michael

She said it in an Interview with Bill Oreilly. I cant find the you tube link. If I can I'll post it.

What did you divine my intentions as? Merely curious…

I figured that you were throwing out the soviet union reference just to attach my idea to the soviet union and all that weight that that comes with, as it's something I've witnessed from objectivist in the past.

If someone else calls the shots, then you have no choice, no?

Right. Someone else is almost always calling the shots, and unless it's your school, your probably not calling the shots. I figure we're talking about a choice that's not much of a choice.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Haven't you clearly contradicted yourself? You want standards and those standards will be coercively enforced, no? If so, then you are for forcibly teaching people what you believe to be true, no?

Children should all learn when the American revolution occurred, or The Civil war was fought between the North and the South? or that in math 2+2=4? If these are true things, then yes I hope that they are forcibly and coercively taught to those who, by choice, choose to go to public schooling institutions.

I have no problem arguing for "an imagined future where there is no state control of education." (And there was a real past with no state control of education, so it's not societies have always had states that have always had their hands in education. Even the US didn't have government control of education for a large chunk of its history.)

The educational system and the federal takeover of education is not something that just happened for no reason. There is a tendency to discount that as societies grow large and more advanced there is pressure for states to take over things like this and regulate trade. I suspect that it's largely from businesses or trade unions or guilds. I think it's a function of societies, and it's pretty typical in governments. When or where has that trend been reversed? If it has, then I'm sorry for describing it as a imagined future.

I've been arguing, un-successfully, on your ground in the sense that I haven't challenged your assumptions, because I'm familiar with objectivism (I'm assuming of course that you are an objectivist or libertarian) and was more interested in the standards discussion. It's difficult for me to layout my whole belief system, if it could be called that, in an effort to defend my positions. It's not going too well. Thanks for your patience.

I do take a little issue however with your analysis. You seem to (maybe) be insinuating that there was never any plan to exclude Jefferson in the first place.

Kelly,

That was not my intent. I was merely treating hype in the manner I believe hype should be treated.

If ever you are in doubt about a newspaper article, do the 5 W's and 1 H on it. If it fails that test, then you are reading opinion.

For example, the claim--in screaming headlines--that Jefferson was excluded from "the history textbooks" (as was done in several articles and blogs by the orchestrated liberal hype machine) is a bit misleading in light of what really went on, don't you think? The insinuation was that Jefferson was excluded from American history textbooks or even all history textbooks.

That's hype.

But there is even something more important. You are assuming as an article of faith that the reason Jefferson was not initially included in the world history list was because he promoted the separation of church and state and that conservatives are opposed to that.

What have you read other than an opinion that backs that up? Have you read a statement by someone on the board who had excluded Jefferson--a statement bashing Jefferson for promoting separation of church and state? Or did you only read the opinion of those with an axe to grind?

I am not saying that this was or was not the reason, although I strongly suspect it was not since I am familiar with Barton's position--he thinks separation of church and state is not only correct--it is essential for keeping the republic healthy.

Now, are there religious conservative who are pushing for mixture of church and state? Yup. But that is another issue. I seriously doubt any long-term block of their efforts will be accomplished by the liberal hype machine lying, distorting issues and events, and presenting lopsided opinions as facts about people and committees that worked on a particular project.

Actually, the progressive hype machine people did initially convince you (and others of course) of their hype enough for you to post about it in public. But you did not support that argument with actual facts, since you relied on those folks as your source. And that makes you look careless when you encounter someone who does look at facts, even though I doubt that this was your intention.

Did you like being misled?

Think about it the next time you read these people. Or the conservative hype machine for that matter.

Facts are your friends, Kelly. And they start with 5 W's and 1 H, no matter who writes about them.

Michael

With all due respect Michael, I think that this is a little beside the point. I explained why I linked to the particular story, and what my intent was for doing so. You don’t have to accept that if you don’t like, but I linked to it as any random example. It turned out that the link apparently struck a nerve on what you obviously passionately dislike, poor journalism, and some leviathan known as the liberal progressive hype machine.So wait, let me understand you, you think there is some kind of progressive agenda in the media? You haven't made yourself clear about that.

Do I like being misled? Oh, how I would like to argue this point, but I was sloppy in my posts and I'll pick other battles. Do I like being misled? All in all not so bad. But like most things it's more of a issue of confirmation bias than anything else. I've sat through enough conversations with religious conservatives to know that the founding was a truly religious experience and that they intended for the country to be based on the 10 commandments, hell even Sarah Palin thinks so. So please forgive me if I tend see red flags when I hear things like the Texas Board story.

Next time I post I'll have my MLA guide next to the computer and a few more minutes.

Kelly

If you're looking for something uplifting like Atlas Shrugged, I would suggest Requiem for Man, the last chapter in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. It's got some dreary parts (in similar manner to AS, when the villains communicate), but several sections are very inspirational.

Mike

Thanks Mike.

I read that years ago, but I can't remember it. Maybe it's time for a refresher.

Kelly

Dan,

I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.

The important thing, for me, is the essentials. Your views on how education should be run are like how the Soviets felt the economy should be run: top-down with one general plan. That's how I deployed the analogy. I'd hoped with such a comparison, you wouldn't so much bicker about the comparison but either agree that it's valid or show me why your views here are really not so centralized and authoritarian.

"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."

I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect. (And this is not from a general ignorance. I've read a few books on education in America and its history.) I also seriously doubt you do or most people weighing in on this issue do. I think many people just uncritically assume public education worked or worked well at one time and then it broke. Further, they seem to believe that if public education just went back to being like it was before it broke that all would be fine.

"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"

So you think that it's good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?

There seem to be several assumptions packed in there. First is that we'd all be better off if everyone were taught the same version of history. Second, that somehow competing voices will survive despite this approved version being taught. Third, I'm just guessing is that history is already settled -- that it's merely a matter of teaching the correct history rather than that it might be the case that it's unsettled.

Do you see the danger of everyone being taught by the same institution (viz., public schools), the same history -- even if alternative voices aren't suppressed? (Just how alternatives are to be treated is going to be a big problem. I can just imagine an official list of approved alternative views being allowed and mainly ridiculed. I recall my high school American History class, where I voiced the alternative view that the central bank, perhaps, caused the Great Depression and the New Deal only made things worse. How would that view compete with the official view being taught -- which, I presume, almost everyone taught in US public schools today is taught?)

Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree? Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth? (If so, don't you think everyone who wants to force others to do something -- whether be taught a version of history, follow a production plan, not look at porn, or not smoke pot -- believes they know the truth or what's best for others and that this justifies their coercion? Why are you different than any of them?)

Dan,

I think that it’s difficult to actually discuss ideas when engaged in these type of analogies, because rather than discuss the merits of an idea I have to explain why an idea is not like one of the most evil and destructive states in human history even when it's something as tame as educational standards. I get that you think in essentials, but why not say that it's like the US military or like NIKE, or a host of other centralized decision making entities. They're essentially the same right (top down authoritative structures), with a few differences, or shall we argue about which essentials are really the essential thing? It's been my experience that right from the bat when people throw out comparisons ,even in analogies , to Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, that there is not much common ground for conversation because if asking teachers to teach a standardize curriculum is the same oppression I probably will be dismissed outright. Apologies if I misunderstood your intentions. I'm still relatively new to posting in a forum of ideas, so I'm having to transition from actual human interactions where I can pick up on tone and inflection, to this medium where I can imagine and assign intention.

All that being said I don’t want to answer to your analogy because it is indeed similar to what I'm saying. Somewhat. Yes it's a centralized decision making and it indeed takes a measure of perceived choice away. But I guess where I am arguing from is what we have today, not an imagined future where there is no state control of education. I think it's important that we do a better job of education kids, so I'm not opposed to some controls if they are effective. And what we have today is still a measure freedom of education, you can send kids to public school, you can send kids to private school or home school them, and perhaps there are other options that I'm not aware of as well. In regards to that freedom of choice, your analogy to the authoritative centralized soviet state is not correct. The public education system is public and is going to be at some level controlled buy a municipality or state. In so much as that exists, and I think it should, I think there should be standards.

I agree with you that there is a danger in teaching the same history, But this is the way that it goes. I think that we can all agree on many things in history, it's in the analysis that there are disagreements. It's always going to come down to the teachers and the way that they present the discussion

I'm talking about the public education system, as it is. You're talking about me have a desire to force people and coerce people into things, I'm talking about standards for teaching history or science or math.

You ask, "Finally, even were there a correct version of history, there's no reason to coerce everyone into being taught it. Don't you agree?"

I agree. But If kids are going to go to public schools I think they should have some common standards. If they don't want to be coerced into learning, they have alternatives. The way you’ve set it up though it seems that all learning is coerced or forced.

You also ask "Or are you one of those people who believes it's okay to forcibly teach people the truth?"

No.

Kelly

I found nothing fractionally objectionable about the article I linked to.

Kelly,

How about the date on the article, March 18, 2010? This was written before the changes were passed.

The thing about Jefferson is even amusing. In the article you linked to, what facts about Jefferson were being deleted, who was proposing it, etc., were not mentioned. (It seems like the old standards of Who What When Where Why and How are no longer in vogue at the Washington Post.)

So I Googled it. I saw a flurry of leftish publications, all dated about the end of March, claiming the deleted Jefferson from the school books mantra (allegedly because he supported separation of church and state and conservatives don't like that). So I started looking for articles dated after the measure was passed. The first I came across--dated May 24, 2010--was this: Thomas Jefferson Sneaks Back into Texas Textbooks.

Ho hum. What a miracle. What a sneaky sneaky miracle.

After looking more in depth at this, I read that the whole controversy was not about the role of Jefferson in USA history, but his importance to world history. I'm happy he is included in the list of influential political thinkers in world history.

I suspect that all of the objections in the Washington Post article you linked to had similar "miraculous" happy endings...

I will let you decide whether the rhetoric and journalistic patterns fit the criterion of objectivity. But if you want to make allegations of fact, you should at least check the dates of the articles you link to and, if they are older than current, check them against what actually happened.

Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the links and yes I see that TJ is back in the books. Good News. I do take a little issue however with your analysis. You seem to (maybe) be insinuating that there was never any plan to exclude Jefferson in the first place. Sure the date was before the vote, and that was my fault for not following up and I'm happy that I was wrong. The article itself wasn't particularly scholarly, but not all articles are. When I said that I don't see anything factually inaccurate about the article, I meant that I did not believe the article was making up any facts and that indeed they were reporting on proposed changes to the textbooks. In fact, after following the link that you provided I read this "Burned by very bad publicity, social conservatives on Texas State Board of Education scrambled to undo an earlier vote to delete Thomas Jeffersonfrom a list of influential political thinkers in world history. After renewed debate today, the board reinserted Jefferson (but not James Madison, who didn't the cut) in the world history curriculum."

So they did vote to remove Jefferson prior to deleting the vote? Your right, miracles do happen and this one was indeed sneaky.

In truth I did believe that the conservative board was trying to remove Jefferson for reasons that he did not fit into their narrative of the founding fathers, and perhaps that is what they tried to do. I'm grateful to have a better picture now. That being said many of these conservative are not just "trying to get the truth out there" but are very good at trying to push there own false views.

One more thing. Remember I brought all this up in the context of discussing why I was concerned with the general trend of conservatives who appear to be pushing religion in the public sphere, and I still hold to that. I mentioned that there were efforts to excluded T.J. from the textbooks. The article that I linked to was just to illustrate that these things are occurring, I could have mentioned or linked to a Terry Schivo article, or Kansas education science standards article or something on the numerous people running for the house on a much more religious platform and perhaps in retrospect I should have.

Kelly

Kelly,

The really big issue the progressives are wound up about is the textbook change saying that the Founding Fathers were Christians, especially since it took them so long to erase that fact from the history books.

But before you simply quote newspapers like the Washington Post, which is on board with the progressive agenda, you should also look at what actually is being changed in the textbooks.

The man who was a linchpin in getting these changes effected was David Barton, an admitted Christian with a Christian mission. However, Barton has a quality you will not find much in his critics. The man is a monster at knowing his original sources with respect to the Founding Fathers, and later history for that matter. The progressive revisionist history books I have seen so far are very, very scarce on actual quotes and footnotes. The stuff I've seen--when compared side-by-side with Barton's stuff--just doesn't compare in terms of presenting documented facts.

Barton is documented up to his eyeballs. His critics and the progressive revisionist history books generally present a lot of opinions and "interpretations," and quotes from books about books about books, but not much in the way of original sources.

If you would like to read some of the original sources, here is Barton's website where you can find oodles of stuff: Wallbuilders. Look under "Historical Documents" and things like that. It's an eye-opener.

I have no problem with saying the Founding Fathers were Christian if that's what they were. And from their own writings I have read--in their own words, that's exactly what they were. I do have a problem with saying the Founding Fathers were not Christian since they were, and I have a problem with people who worked hard to make it appear that they were not Christians. The information that has already been taught to countless schoolchildren has been a colossal lie.

That bothers me. A lot.

Saying someone is or was a Christian does not mean you have to adopt that person's form of Christianity. So why the lie? Why lie to children, for God's sake? Why lie to children in school--the very place children are supposed to be taught facts?

Here. You don't have to wade through a lot of old documents if you don't want to. Wikiquote does quite nicely. Check these quotes out from George Washington, for example:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

---General Order, (9 July 1776) George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 3g Varick Transcripts

. . .

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

--General Orders (2 May 1778); published in Writings of George Washington (1932), Vol.XI, pp. 342-343

. . .

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."

--Letter to Edward Newenham (20 October 1792)

On that same page of Wikiquote, here is a quote that is presented as wrongly attributed to Washington:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

The context and meaning of that quote was that since the USA is not a nation based on religion (in the sense that a Muslim nation can be), there was no threat of the USA making a religious war with a Muslim nation. Here is the explanation from Wikiquote:

This statement was made by an official representative of the U.S., but is actually a line from the English version of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, initially signed by a representative of the US on 4 November 1796 during Washington's presidency, approved by Congress 7 June 1797 and finally signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. Article 11 of it reads:

"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 or 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."

The statement was written that way to calm down the excessive religious feelings of Muslims! It was to characterize the USA government as having separation of church and state, thus not a religious threat.

That is a far cry from using this as "proof" that Washington was not a Christian, but instead, as often stated, a Deist (in the modern meaning--not the meaning of the times--at that).

To repeat once again what I have been insinuating, but explicitly this time: There is nothing wrong with learning the truth. There is everything wrong with learning a lie.

I believe the corrections in the Texas textbooks will correct some fundamental lies and strategic omissions and "re-interpretations" that have been put there by a creeping progressive agenda.

The liberals are going nuts, too. The jig is up and they know it, so it's all over except the shouting. And shout they do. If they can present original sources showing that the textbook changes are false, they should. I am certain some measures can be done about it and that people like David Barton will welcome being corrected. (He may be religious, but he does have extremely high scholarly integrity standards.) So far, I have not seen too much that has impressed me in this respect.

Michael

Michael,

I found nothing fractionally objectionable about the article I linked to. Whether the Times has a progressive agenda or not doesn't seem to matter in relation to the story. Plus the bias that newspapers like the Times exhibit generally have to do with the stories that they cover. I haven't run into them making up facts, it's more what facts they choose to report, and much the same could be said for just about all newspapers and news stations.

I have not heard of David Barton, I'll have to look into him. I, like you, am also very interested that just the truth be taught, which is why I was concerned with some of the changes to the textbooks. I Agree if some or most of the founders were religious Christians, which they were, teach it. But why downplay the role of T.Jefferson? He so much more important and influential than Washington. Both he and Madison were instrumental in leading the separation of church and state, why not report the facts on that? Why is is important to have Jefferson Davis's inauguration along side of Abraham Lincoln? Why change the name "slave trade" to Trilateral trade"? Many questions. I suspect that we are not correcting untruths here, just perpetuating more.

If you are looking for sources of work that perhaps challenge Bartons, I'd look into The Godless Constitution I read it years ago and remember being very impressed.

Dan,

I understand that analogies are not meant to be exactly the same, however It just seemed like the scale was off for the analogy. It's like the difference between being shot by an bb gun or a shot gun, from the relatively tame United States to the overarching oppression of the Soviet Union.

"I don't know about any idyllic period during the 1950s, though I suspect people believing in that probably either grew up then (people seem to very often romanticize their childhood) or have read books by people who did."

I'm not trying to romanticize the period, I was just commenting on the quality of education over the last 50 years or so, and my , albeit uniformed, opinion on the matter was that the education system was turning out better educated children then as opposed to now. Perhaps you think this is incorrect?

"This sounds like an argument for indoctrination: no competing voices, no one gets to opt up, just shut up, listen, and get the official version of your history or else. How far is this from the Soviet model and how unlike what the American view of liberty is supposed to be? No marching to the beat of the different drummer on your watch, right?"

So you think that it’s good to have radically different histories? Really. I expressed that I think it's a bad idea for Americans to be taught "radically" different versions of history, and from that you get that it's my way or the high way, and try to imply that "my way" (if you can even get "my way" from the few sentences' I posted) was close to the Soviet Model. Where did I mention that no on gets competing voices, or that everyone should accept my version?

Please forgive me for not using the quote feature, I'm still a little new to this,Is there a forum topic on it or could someone please walk me through it, If not I'll keep on trying.

Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly,

I grew up part of my life in the Bible Belt. Then my family moved further north. I didn't detect the Southern education as inferior. On the contrary, I got really bored because I had to relearn things (from a "modern education" approach) that I had already been taught. It bored me silly and I saw no reason to wait so long.

I don't know about now in 2010, but I get the impression that your view of the Bible Belt comes from the caricatures of it in Hollywood comedies. That would make anyone "shutter to think."

You might want to think about opening those shutters a bit...

Michael

Michael,

I was referring to the current trend of religiousness that seems to be taking hold in republican enclaves, generally the south, and their distain for science, not to mention revisionist history, like removing references to Thomas Jefferson from history books. I don’t mean to give the impression that I think it's only the south, but as I mentioned, right now this seems to be the strongest area of support.

I have spent some time in the South, although I grew up in Detroit, so I may have some incorrect impressions, and perhaps my impression of bible belt has been somewhat misinformed by Hollywood, although I like to think I'm perhaps a little more sophisticated and I do read. I think I have a tendency to build up what I dislike into more a behemoth than the thing deserves. To be burned by my own shutter remark, oh the SHAME! But fair enough.

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn't think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

But this is an excellent argument to remove government completely from education. It's like you've asked, in the Soviet Union as it was collapsing, "I'd probably be less concerned about Nationalists in office if I didn't think it would filter into the economic systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of the economic system. Can you imagine what production and distribution would be like , right now 1991, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of the economic system in areas like Central Asia or Siberia."

To be sure, yes, I probably won't like decisions made locally, but I'm much more afraid of centrally made decisions -- even when I agree with their content. Why? The form they take is a diktat from on high and the wider lesson they teach is "control the center and you control the whole system and need not worry about that frustrating thing known as individual choice."

Dan,

I'm not sure that what I said and what you said about the Soviet Union are even in the same ballpark so I'm finding it a bit difficult to reply. The Soviet System was such a disaster from the start that it doesn’t easily compare to the problem we have with public education today. First of all the public education system functioned pretty well for many years and been around from the begin of the US and there has always been some federal or state involvement in education. I'm not that informed about the subject, to be honest but If the school systems were much better say in the 50's what accounts for the difference today : the Feds?

I tend to think that there should be some standards taught across the country. We have to have a common history if we hope to identify as Americans and exist in our own culture. The Idea that we could have radically different competing histories can’t lead anywhere good.

Mike,

I do indeed prefer Futurama to South Park. Once I saw the Robot Devil and the Hypno-toad I was hooked. And while I love Butters and the Underwear Gnomes, I find Futurama a bit more sophisticated.

As to why I'm a former objectivist, I just ran into enough things that I couldn’t make fit. I think that over the years I became a bit too invested in defending objectivism or trying to filter all my experiences through objectivism where other explanations would have worked as well or better. I had always been somewhat uncomfortable with aspects of Objectivism (things like family ,psychology and emotions) as I became older those things just amplified. And run ins with overzealous or dogmatic objectivists never help. As I was reading more criticisms of Objectivism, I uh, got a little angry and turned on it a bit. But as the dust settled for me, I still find that I'm interested in Rand and Objectivism and I'm still quite influenced by her ideas. When I remember how uplifting and how excited I was when I read the Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged I can’t help but lament that I didn’t end up finding the same thing in Objectivism.

Kelly

Hello everyone. I found Objectivist Living about 6 months back and have been visiting pretty regularly, so I figured I'd start commenting. I read Atlas Shrugged late in high school went on to read all of Rand's novels, short stories and most of her essays. I attended quite a few lectures during that time, I think they were all Lyceum International back then. I'm no longer an objectivist but am still fascinated by Ayn Rand, and still very interested in her philosophy as well as philosophy in general. I've been very impressed by the level of discussion here. So hello and I'm looking forward to joining the conversation.

Kelly

Two words form my position: less government. Actually three words: massively less government.

Michael

Agreed. But I'm not so sure that less government is going to remedy your concerns about poor education. I'd probably be less concerned about republicans in office if I didn’t think it would filter into the school systems, but right now I'd be just as concern with local control of school systems. Can you imagine what history classes would be like , right now 2010, without at least some standards? I actually shutter to think about complete local control of schools in areas like the deep South or the bible belt.

Kelly

While I don’t agree with Herb's voting tactics, I do agree that creationism teaching religious conservatives are more dangerous than Obama care. It's one thing to stifle motivation and socialize medicine, it's another thing altogether to deny science outright, and leave things to god. There are many western countries that have socialized medicine, and while that Is not an optimal policy, there is still science and progress.

I suspect the game plan is to criticize Obama as much as possible, whether based on fact or lies, and negatives will add up in peoples minds. The Jones Act story is a great example; people who don’t like unions or democrats will hear the false version of this story and it will confirm what they want to believe about Obama. Even if they hear the true story, which they more than likely will not, the damage has been done. There are enough valid criticisms of the current administration without resorting to false ones. All that being said

BTW this is my first post on OL, but I've been lurking for quite a while now. Great site.