• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas board adopts new social studies curriculum


huh? The concept of "Separation of Church and State" goes back to the year 500. The Anabaptists also supported it in the 16th century. Both of which predate Locke. Do you think the Founders employed ALL of the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers? Most of them favored monarchy, BTW, yet still selectively employed the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu and others. Furthermore, the letter you cite was written in 1802, more than a decade after the rafitication of the Constitution AND it is only one person. I challenge you to find the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution! It isn't there.

Show me anyone who doesn't teach that we're a democratic republic. You asking a dumb ass question as if someone actually does what you claims isn't anything to respond to.

I know MANY who don't teach that. The U.S. is a FEDERAL Democratic Republic TODAY, but it didn't truly start out that way. The U.S. is technically a Constitutional Federal Republic.
 

Actually, many of the first settlers in the English colonies left England to practice their own religion and then proceded to IMPOSE it on others. The Puritans were influenced by many of Calvin's ideas, and one of those ideas was to create a theocracy, much as he practiced in Geneva when he led that city. Those ideas were brought to Great Britain by John Knox where he founded Presbyterianism in Scotland. This and another offshoot in the Netherlands influenced the thinking of the Puritans in England. The same Puritans who imposed their religion on others in the Massachusetts Bay colony as well as England when Oliver Cromwell became military dictator.

This was the development in Massachusetts, and we know the importance of Mass.

Also, the Federalist Papers. Two comments on those. 1. That was the handiwork of THREE men -- hardly representative of all of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or the conventions in the states ratifying the document. 2. If you read the document and understood the intellectual history of many of the ideas present, you would realize that many of them PRECEED the Enlightenment and have Christian antecedents.
 


I am hoping that you don't use Wiki in your factual searches for class material Joe.

However, in this case Wiki has some right, and much left out for purposes of arriving at their slant here.



See, the problem with liberal readings of this famous letter is that, like in most cases, libs tend to omit the important context that makes clear the intent of the letter. Then fall back on a misreading of the 1st Amendment like is done here by another poster.

Your Star said:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'.....


Establishment of a religion as clearly seen in Jefferson's letter to Danbury Baptists was that in no way should America establish a "National Religion" fore that was what they were fleeing from in England and the tyranny associated with the head of state also being the head of a national religion.

It is a cynical approach that liberals have had in this country for some forty plus years now to destroy religion, and adopt some sort of atheist doctrinaire that demonizes anyone as a zealot that happens to believe in God, or think that anyone other than Government has the power to grant rights.

Think about it, what system wants people to reject God, and all the rights belief in him stand for? One obviously that wants that power over lives, one that wants to control you. Communists.


j-mac
 
I wonder if they will say that Constitutional Republics were first advocated by Liberals. Doubt it.
Ah - the High Queen of Drive-By Sophistry appears yet again...

Classical American liberals, rather than Modern American liberals such as yourself, created this Constitutional Republic. People like you refer to people professing the ideals of Classical American liberals as "right wing nutjobs"; you trying to associate your ideolocial positions with theirs is quite laughable.
 
Last edited:
Just so we get this straight...
Do you or do you not hold the position that "original intent" - that is, the arguments and positions held by those that wrote the Constitution as to what the clauses used in the Constituton are supposed to mean - should be the guiding principle in the judicial interpreation of the Constitution?
 
C'mon, aren't you hoping that those new social studies books have Jesus riding a dinosaur somewhere in there? How sweet would THAT be!?

Jesus riding a dinosaur? Never heard that one.:rofl
 
Jesus riding a dinosaur? Never heard that one.:rofl



Yeah, that was clever, wasn't it? Jesus riding a dinosaur....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How about this, I'm going to type the word FART! you'll probably wet your pants.


j-mac
 
Jesus riding a dinosaur? Never heard that one.:rofl
My question is...

Why couldn't Jesus rude a dinosaur? What precludes such a thing?

And, as an aside...
In my AD&D days, I had a minotaur that rode a triceratops. All kinds of cool.
 
Yeah, that was clever, wasn't it? Jesus riding a dinosaur....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

How about this, I'm going to type the word FART! you'll probably wet your pants.


j-mac

Farts jokes arent really my thing. Obvious distortions of proven fact are really funny.......Sometimes.
 
Last edited:
My question is...

Why couldn't Jesus rude a dinosaur? What precludes such a thing?

And, as an aside...
In my AD&D days, I had a minotaur that rode a triceratops. All kinds of cool.

That does sound cool. Please dont teach it in a classroom as historical fact.
 
Farts jokes arent really my thing. Obvious distortions of proven fact are really funny.......Sometimes.


Ok, let's try this one.....'Liberals are right on most issues'.....:rofl:2rofll::2funny:


Hey you're right, that is funny......:bootyshake


j-mac
 

-my emphasis-


Wrong.

In the letter below Jefferson explains to his attorney general the reason for the wording of his response to the Danbury Baptists, knowing that the response would be a very public communication.

Jefferson's letter, as he states below, made the statement that any alliance between church and state was illegal, under the authority of the Constitution. This went way beyond the 'national religion' theory in which you believe.


Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, January 1, 1802

Jan 1, 1802.

Averse to receive addresses, yet unable to prevent them, I have generally endeavored to turn them to some account, by making them the occasion, by way of answer, of sowing useful truths & principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets. The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution. It furnishes an occasion, too, which I have long wished to find, of saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did.

The address, to be sure, does not point at this, & it's introduction is awkward. But I foresee no opportunity of doing it more pertinently. I know it will give great offence to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. Will you be so good as to examine the answer, and suggest any alterations which might prevent an ill effect, or promote a good one among the people? You understand the temper of those in the North, and can weaken it, therefore, to their stomachs: it is at present seasoned to the Southern taste only. I would ask the favor of you to return it, with the address, in the course of the day or evening. Health & affection.



Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, January 1, 1802
 

We are talking about the history of this country not your interpretation of the First Amendment.


Then why are you debating the point I made in the first place? We are a republic not a democracy.

That was a very common way of writing down the date during that time. Its just how they did things.

It was common because religion was part of their life on a daily basis and you have nothing to prove otherwise.

I don't care what the personal beliefs of the founding fathers were.

And that is the key reason liberals like yourself need to stay as far away from textbooks as possible.

It doesn't matter to me, or this country for that matter.

Actually, the history of this nation does matter to this country.

What matters is what they wrote down in the Constitution, which is this country's supreme law. In the Constitution it states that there is to be a separation between church, and state, and that this country shall have no official religion.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lie? Separation of Church and state is NOT in the constution. Please stop lying and claiming it in there.

It's all stated out in the first amendment.

Another lie. No it is not. You are interpreting it that way based on false assumption.

This country's government will always be secular,and thats the way the founders wanted it.

Sigh. And yet another lie. Your intreptation flies in the face of history.

This country was first settled by people who wanted to be free from religious persecution.

Finally a factual true statement.

Do you not think the founders knew this? They didn't want this country to become what they left, they wanted this country to be a place where anybody could practice any religion they wanted.

Again you are once again misintreptating their intentions by ignoring history. They were careful not to establish a specific sect of Christianity by the state. It was not to purge religion from all government life. That is the lie repeated by liberals when they refuse to look at the writings Jefferson wrote that explained the reason for the first amendment when it came to the religious section.


Now you are really scaring me. If you are going to teach history, ignoring the key sections of history that explain the hsitory of the documentation written that began this country and replacing it with your own interpretation is the textbook defintion of revisionist history. Its amazing and scary you don't see that.

I don't claim to know it all, but don't say I'm ignoring history. This country was never meant to be a Christian nation, and the first amendment says it all.

I can only go by your own words. You have claimed you don't "care" about certain aspects of history that explain the origins of the vcery documentation you are going to teach and you still want to claim you aren't ignoring history?

You are hitting on the very fear conservatives have of liberals. A disregard of the documentation and life of the founding fathers that created our nation and replacing it with a modern interpretation of the events.

Don't revise history or use your own interpretation of it. Teach history.
 

Wrong again. Jefferson never EVER said that religion as a general practice should be universally excluded from all government. He was very very specific in pointing out that an establishment of religion endorsed by the state was the reason for the 1st amendment.

You are making interpretations for wording that does not exist.

If religion was to be completely excluded from all government you would never have religion in any text or wording in the founding papers and we all know that is false.
 
Last edited:

I know about about teaching and what is taught. No one is inaccurately teaching what we are. You may think you know many, but it is likely you just think something that isn't so. What you need is some link to show that misinformation is actually being taught, and not just the opinion of some like minded thinker who has his facts wrong.

As you claims claim this stuff is being done, the burden of proof lies with you.
 

I used his words, you are misinterpreting them. 'Universally excluded' wasn't discussed:

The Baptist address, now enclosed, admits of a condemnation of the alliance between Church and State, under the authority of the Constitution.


No 'alliance' is his wording. You are confusing the issue here.

Actually, Jefferson himself sometimes used religion as a personal political tool. He had to, after being elected President, because of relentless claims that he was an atheist.
 

Wikipedi is an encyclopedia, and as such not a source used in academic endeavors. The reason is that it is just an over view source. And I only use it here as an overview source, but you can find many more on the writings if you want to.

And no, our system does not want people to reject God. I went to a Catholic College as a student and there was no difference in their presentation than when I went to the U of I or the University of Northern Michigan. You simply believe things that are factually in correct. Too much American non thinker IMHO.
 

It is amazing how paranoid you are being. If I remember correctly, the Nazis also tried to exterminate religion, and replace it.

The moment you start making statements like what I quoted, you lose all credibility, and become just another hyper-partisan ideologue.
 

I'm not confusing anything.

Your interpretation claiming that Jefferson wished exclusion of all religion from government is a false premise.

Either produce the exact quote that supports you or retract the claim.

And please stop ignoring the context. It was about the establishment of religion not the exclusion of it.

Actually, Jefferson himself sometimes used religion as a personal political tool. He had to, after being elected President, because of relentless claims that he was an atheist.

Another lie.

My God man, are you going to be that transparent? Do you have any evidence of his declaration of atheism?

Of course you don't because its just another revision of history.

Jefferson wrote, "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others. ... I am a real Christian -- that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."

There is my direct evidence. Where is yours?
 
Heaven forbid that we actually teach what the influences of our Founding Fathers were...

I agree. Let's teach them about ALL the founding fathers though, including Thomas Jefferson.


Heaven forbid that we teach students what the government of the US REALLY is...

I agree again, but let's teach Republicans that we are a Constitutional Republic. They are the one's who say "We are spreading democracy around the world at the force of our guns." How can we spread something that we aren't?

Heaven forbid we actually teach some BASIC economic understanding.

No negative comments about this. I actually agree 100%.
 
I agree. Let's teach them about ALL the founding fathers though, including Thomas Jefferson.

No problem here.

I agree again, but let's teach Republicans that we are a Constitutional Republic. They are the one's who say "We are spreading democracy around the world at the force of our guns." How can we spread something that we aren't?

We are a democracy, the problem people think "direct democracy" which we are not. We are a representative republic which is a form of democracy.
 
Wrong.

Jefferson's letter, as he states below, made the statement that any alliance between church and state was illegal, under the authority of the Constitution. This went way beyond the 'national religion' theory in which you believe.
Just so we get this straight...
Do you or do you not hold the position that "original intent" - that is, the arguments and positions held by those that wrote the Constitution as to what the clauses used in the Constituton are supposed to mean - should be the guiding principle in the judicial interpreation of the Constitution?
 
18th century intellectuals tended toward deism because it was the worldview they considered most consistent with the physics of Isaac Newton, but they were generally proud of their Christian heritage for the same reasons contemporary secular Jews are proud of their heritage. Although, I question the actual degree of Christianity that was being practiced within that heritage. In addition, not all the Founding Fathers were deists, though the ringleaders usually were.


There is no original intent, because the Founding Fathers did not agree on most things. Indeed, after the Federalists were crushed everywhere else, it was Jefferson's original intent that the U.S. Constitution be modified to erase the judicial branch and make judges subjects of the chief executive.
 
Last edited:

The only ones revising history are the 5 members of the TX Board of Education so it will fit their political leanings.

The best examples are the UN and Thomas Jefferson. If you teach that the UN is a threat to US sovereignty, then you're automatically injecting your opinion. What you should be doing is teaching about the UN and its function, you could ASK students if THEY think it's a threat to US sovereignty as part of a paper. If you wanted to talk about Jefferson, you would have students read his work and then ask them to write about Jefferson and his take on the Separation of Church and State. Ignoring his writings is lying by omission.

That's called teaching critical thinking.

What the TX Board of Education has done has turned their political opinion into FACT.

If you were truly for proper education you wouldn't fight liberal bias by inserting conservative bias in its place. You and the TX BoE simply want your views to become facts to young people.

This is a bigger bastardization to education than anything I sat through (and I grew up in a VERY conservative school district; where slavery was pretty much ignored and WW2 was taught with patriotic songs).
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…