http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm

Not to be all "you yankees sure are dumb" but yipes. The UN is dangerous, American values benefit the world and government taxation stunts economic progress?

Texan children will hopefully put up their hands in class and say "Double-yoo-tee-eff?"

I think that AZ & TX are drinking from the same water supply.

Although I completely understand the motive behind it and am 100% positive that this is just Republicans going after their own agenda, I think it's being slightly overstated. For instance, the "church and state" part of the new curriculum is for "pointing out that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring that students compare and contrast the judicial language with the wording in the First Amendment." I think that's perfectly acceptable, considering many think that "separation of church and state" is part of the Constitution, and IMO judicial agenda SHOULD be taught to get a better view of the Supreme Court's role (in fact, that's how the Brits teach that topic it seems). Also, taxes CAN (not always, but CAN) harm economic growth, so why not teach that at a certain point an increase in taxes will not bring in government revenue, aka the topic of the Laffer curve. It's an incredibly contested topic, so at the very least I would hope the Laffer curve would be talked about in any decent Economics class. And as many people here will point out, the UN is an incredibly twisted organization. While I don't agree that the curriculum should focus on how they "undermine" US actions, it should damn well be taught that the UN is not this holy grail of peace and harmony like in many textbooks. Or the change to describing America as a "constitutional republic" instead of "democracy". The motive is clearly to somehow disassociate democracy from Democratic, but honestly, the US isn't a democracy. Those changes aren't inherently bad, it's just the motive behind them is clearly seen to somehow decry Democrats, and the eventual biased teaching of them which is where my problems lie. The things like not changing BC/AD are just conservatives being picky, and watering down the Civil Rights movement is just conservatives being *******s as well, since it's an incredibly watershed moment in civil rights and there are so many intricacies about it that should be taught.

It's the religious overtones that scare me the most. And of course in theory, those things I pointed out above are the extent to which it says it should be taught. In practice will be another question. So what very well could be fine and dandy curriculum changes in theory could (and probably will) end up as a biased conservative teaching of the subject. It's a slippery slope, that's for sure.

http://www.aclutx.org/files/051310ACLUofTexasSBOEReport.pdf

Welcome to the world of public education. I kind of agree with mscbuck here, except that I found throughout school that everything I was taught tended towards a more liberal viewpoint, so I'm happy to see it swing the other way. I'd be happier if it didn't swing at all, though.

P.S. the sooner that everyone stops thinking we are a democracy and that democracy is the best, the better.

When people call the U.S. a democracy they're simply using the general form of the word (e.g: free elections). There's a double meaning. It's similar to how there's a general form of the word theory (e.g: general v. scientific). In this sense, they're not incorrect in using this word.

We may be correct when using it in its general sense, but there's a whole mess of people who don't get why the difference is important. Public school teaches a lot of WHAT and not a lot of WHY, and to me, the WHY is waaay more important than the WHAT.

Aye, there's nothing wrong with teaching both sides of an argument (the economic theory) as long as the balance is correct. Same goes with double meanings.

It's the insidiousness of it that's quite damning, as buck said. The thinly veiled religious and political undercurrent.

A Representative Democracy is a type of Republic. We shouldn't pretend or teach that there isn't any overlap. James Madison is rolling over in his grave.

Completely not what I said.

I think that I was simply trying to point out that it's quite possible that they'll be attempting to treat "Democracy" (ignoring the subject of Representative Democracy or even Democratic-Republics) & "Republic" as opposites or at least more different than similar when the opposite is actually true.

Good Lord.



[quote=Bill of Rights, Article the third (Amendment I)]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

The point was not the labels and names. The point was that regardless of how similar they are, or how they categorize into each other, or any other relation, there are differences in the spectrum, and they are important differences.

Well, the UN is a threat to American Freedom and the Founding Father's routinely referenced God and the Bible so I'm not sure what your offense to that idea was or even why you would quote the first amendment as if it contradicted the notion before it.

Over here in Europe, I only have freedom with a lowercase 'f'.

How is the UN a threat to American freedom? I think that "referenced" is a pretty strong word. I would've probably went w/ "mentioned".

i actually lol'ed



FOX NEWS FAIR AND BALANCED

1. The UN is a threat to freedom

2. American values are a benefit

3. Government involvement hurts the economy



I agree with Wookie.

There is pretty much definitely a liberal bias in the majority of educational curricula I've encountered. If you're commenting on the fact that "redressing" the bias apparently means just putting a DIFFERENT bias on it, then okay.

Maybe it's not really a liberal bias, just the truth.

How is the UN a threat to freedom?

The UN is an American invention (along with the League of Nations before it,) created to extend and reinforce the Monroe Doctrine. In particular, it was meant to prevent the sort of under-the-table double-dealing that led to WW1 and it's been very successful.

The UN charter prohibits them from operating their own armies or security forces, effectively limiting them to basic humanitarian operations (e.g. UNICEF, WFP.) The United States is a permanent member of the security council, which grants you unlimited veto rights over any security decision the UN makes.

They are absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever. It's terrifying that you actually believe this.

The Bible is the most prolific source of metaphor in the English language. Thousands of rabid atheists reference God and the Bible every day, and they don't even realize it.

The Founding Fathers left many direct, pointed comments about their intentions w.r.t. religion and government (e.g. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, the original wording of the Declaration of Independence, the first amendment which is designed to specifically prohibit the formation of a Christian state.)

We also know that, while many of the members of the continental congress were theologians, all of the cool dudes were deist. So the fact that they reference the Bible a lot proves nothing.

Don't forget, things were much different back then. People simply talked differently, even if their beliefs were not Christian.

I'm not sure whether you're joking or are actually serious.

1) The notion that the United Nations is dangerous to the United States of America, let alone to "American Freedom" (whatever it is that you mean by that) to me sounds rather absurd. What makes you think that is the case?

2) Is there some part of the first amendment that I misread? To me, it seems to say that the government will not back up religion (or oppose it) in any way. Taken in that context, your argument makes no sense. Not to mention the fact that far from all "founding fathers" were believing/practicing theists. And lastly, you actually think it's a good idea to have religion mixed up in state affairs (or, for that matter, anything at all)?

Deists undercover in Christian churches.

You'd get ****ed up for thinking God was a concept (or what have you) instead of a white dude.

I f***ing love you so much.

Clarify.

UNs hates freedoms.

Global government?

Global gvoermetns hates feeesdsoms.

I believe you are intoxicated.

I believe you was a a commuinist.

What's a commuinist?

Global Government = US loses freedoms?
What, how, where...

Other nations making laws for the United States.

What laws has the UN made that have restricted individual freedoms of US citizens?

Global government = US could lose freedoms. But the UN is not a global government.

That's what I was referring to. If the UN became a global government, then the United States could lose freedoms.