Texas wants to rewrite the US History books

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

Maybe this is a result of your school's textbook, but do you realize that Separation of Church and State does not exist in law or founding documents? Jefferson ONLY mentioned it in private correspondence.

It's a giant misconception.

It was more to keep the state out of the church than the church out of the state. However the framers of the constitution, notably Jefferson and Madison did offer their thoughts on it and pretty much stated that an exclusive separation was best. That's when you catch the "spirit" of the law. Whether it is actually in the laws or not does not matter, it is very important that they remain separate and it is not, by ANY degree, the major point of Jefferson's philosophies on the creation of this nation, so to focus on that alone is unfair to the legwork that he did. So as I said, legally or not, it's for the better of the people to keep them separate.

How can you offer a freedom to exercise and allow laws that prohibit such? Sure there are some on the books (polygamy, to counter the cult Mormons), but not too many.

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

Exactly, I was going to comment on this as well.

Mattyk · 03-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

Agreed.

Trample the Elderly · 03-17-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Can no one be impartial any more? Does no one take the responsibilities that they are charged with seriously? It's a shame, which ever way you lean.

It was never impartial.

His Story = history

The rich write the world's history. The poor write its music.

saden1 · 03-17-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

Yes. While the phrase, "separation of church and state," does not exist in founding documents, this is clearly what the Bill of Rights had in mind when it said that government will neither establish nor prohibit the establishment of religion.

The idea that the founding fathers were strict Christians is bunk. The words "God" or "Jesus" do not appear in the Constitution, as they would if the founding fathers had considered us to be a Christian country. Further, the first treaty entered into by the United States, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, expressly claims that the US government is not based on religion.

Excising Jefferson as an intellectual influence but touting the influence of Aquinas and Calvin is deplorable.

Let's not forget why a lot of people left Europe for the Americas....to get away from the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and whatever other bloody church there was.

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well I'd counter that the bill of rights, through the right to worship freely, pretty much sets the stage for the separation of church and state. I mean think about it, if the citizens are free to worship whoever and whatever they want, how can you legislate based on one set of beliefs vs another?

This was to protect the churches FROM the Government more than to keep religion out of Government. Look at the times it was written and the Church of England being controlled by the Government and forced upon the citizenry.

The Founders were primarily Christians and there are citations of God all throughout written laws, on Government buildings and on currency. They never had any intention to separate Church from State, only to keep the "State" our of churches and let people worship as they choose to or not at all. They didn't say that beliefs had to be censored or hidden at all. They had their very public beliefs BUT the also did not want to prevent others from having and displaying theirs even if different.

The whole concept has been twisted in attempts to silence religious practices completely. The Founders intended on Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion as many push today.

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

Ok Buster, but exclude TJ simply because of that? I think you can note all of that in textbooks AND note TJ's contributions as well.

This is BS. I am all for more information, but not excluding certain facts because of personal beliefs. If you truly feel like that, be active in your kids studies, inform them of your perspective or even home school.

The concept of education itself is liberal in nature. Not liberal in the political sense. Liberal in that sense that it isnt close minded, restricted in scope, open to questioning, etc. Its great to put a different perspective but a responsible teacher, parent, etc. should always note the counter argument and not portray things as black and white.

That is education, and some of the points(not all) that these people want simply don't mesh with the concept of knowledge.

I said I disagreed with Jefferson's exclusion. I think you just wanted to say "OK, Buster".

Mattyk · 03-17-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, people say if your not willing to learn the language then leave and that makes perfect sense.

Who's to say they aren't willing?

And maybe if we had a bilingual education system to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem.

BleedBurgundy · 03-17-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

Matty. Dead on man. We need to start teaching a second language at an early age to children, like 1st grade early. Children can pick up language much easier than adults. Being bilingual does nothing but give your child an advantage. I don't care if you learn French, Spanish, Latin, or that clicky shit the aborigines in Australia speak. A 2nd language should be mandatory in US schools.

I agree with this to a point. Right now, spanish is the obvious choice for a second language, but what happens when another demographic surpasses the Hispanic population's numbers? It's beyond impractical to have multiple official languages. We've all just received our census forms, imagine getting 10 copies of that in the mail, and the associated administrative and fiscal problem it poses. I don't think anyone (anyone rational, anyway) has any issue with what another person speaks socially, just officially. And I think that learning the official language of the nation you are CHOOSING to join is a small price to pay for the myriad benefits you are granted on day one of your citizenship.
The U.S. being the "melting pot" implies that we are a mishmash of diversity, which is a great thing. But there's no reason we should forgo common sense.

BleedBurgundy · 03-17-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

It was never impartial.

His Story = history

The rich write the world's history. The poor write its music.

For ****'s sake, you know what my point was. The duty of those in this position NOW, is to be impartial NOW. We can't change what happened yesterday and beyond.

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daseal

Buster,

I think it's a stretch to say that there is no separation of church and state in law or founding documents. If you use that logic, there's very little in founding documents. They're very ambiguous, and were created that way for a reason. These laws are very open to interpretation which is what has made them so flexible to this day.

The correspondance you're speaking of was Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists which is said:

I think he makes his idea of what that law should stand for relatively obvious here.

Also, to say it's not in law is a fallacy as well. The Supreme Court used that exact phrase in one of their rulings.

Source: <3 Wikipedia.
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well there are plenty of other supreme court rulings and/or mentions of it, mostly for separation but some not

either way it's hard to agree that the separation wouldn't be for the best

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saden1

Let's not forget why a lot of people left Europe for the Americas....to get away from the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and whatever other bloody church there was.

yeah, government controlled churches

hell a lot of those people would've LOVED the churches controlling the government though

either way, what some people jumped on some boats for shouldn't control what I do now

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

This was to protect the churches FROM the Government more than to keep religion out of Government. Look at the times it was written and the Church of England being controlled by the Government and forced upon the citizenry.

The Founders were primarily Christians and there are citations of God all throughout written laws, on Government buildings and on currency. They never had any intention to separate Church from State, only to keep the "State" our of churches and let people worship as they choose to or not at all. They didn't say that beliefs had to be censored or hidden at all. They had their very public beliefs BUT the also did not want to prevent others from having and displaying theirs even if different.

The whole concept has been twisted in attempts to silence religious practices completely. The Founders intended on Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion as many push today.

do you think that freedom from religion is important?

I do

man I've met a lot of home schooled kids and it freaks me out how little they actually know about things.. history, the real world, etc

BleedBurgundy · 03-17-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

yeah, government controlled churches

hell a lot of those people would've LOVED the churches controlling the government though

either way, what some people jumped on some boats for shouldn't control what I do now

Is there any country I can go to to escape religion completely? (I know, china, I know) My biggest beef with US is how much control these small minded religious fools have over the government. Legislation based on fairy tales, you gotta love it.

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Who's to say they aren't willing?

And maybe if we had a bilingual education system to begin with it wouldn't be such a problem.

There actually are plenty of ESL programs right now, we all pay for them with taxes.

However, when I go to an ATM or post office, I don't think spending exorbitant money on documents and systems in 8 languages is appropriate or necessary.

Like it or not, English is the language of business and therefore success in this nation. If coming here, they need to know it and use it without the expectation of some that WE cater to THEM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Texas wants to rewrite the US History books

Debating with the enemy