Three cheers for Tevas common sense !

[ironglow]

  TM;
  I did not say that the Christian religion shouild have an advantage, only that we should face the truth. The truth being that most of the founders of our natiopn and nearly all the signatories to our Constitution were Christian. I only said that because there are "revisionists" who are trying to change obvious history; that is what this thread is all about!

[gwhilikerz]

What in the world does having knowledge of the classics have to do with ones Christianity?

[teamnelson]

TM7, if I may split a hair ...

Classics are not required for one's Christian faith.

However, a classical education (which included civics, morality, latin, greek, philosophy, theology) was what education was for our forefathers. So when they put pen to paper, they did so having read the scriptures in original languages, studied the gnostic philosophies John and Paul combatted, read the Latin classics that were so formative in the development of the ideas of a "republic" and a "democracy." Inarguably it made for a much deeper appreciation for the Christian faith, and it enabled them to translate that faith into public practice in real and meaningful ways. It was also the path to become a professional: Doctor, Lawyer, Pastor. All other trades were filled by apprenticeship (OJT).

[ironglow]

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

"Times They Are A-changin'"
Bob Dylan

Science is responsible for the technology to make this forum possible. Science works from gathering data, fossils, DNA, core samples, etc. That data is then interpreted according to empirical values (validity and control) ,subject to peer review before publication. Facts arise as acceptance,(via peer review) that the theory fits the observable data. It is a solid system and almost totally responsible for our technical advances to date. It is vital that all public schools of all levels remain secular. Religious instruction should stay in the temples for those who desire such and not imposed through public education.

  NNJ;
  Those words by a fellow named Bob Dylan in my opinion, carry no more weight than words by an alert local dogcatcher. I have long wondered how or why some folks place special import or significance on a singer/guitar player's words. In what way are they any more profound than statements made by the doctor, lawyer, farmer,butcher, baker or candlestick maker? I certainly do not need someone named Bob Dylan to tell me how to observe things I can easily observe and weigh for myself.
  Schools should remain non-partisan, but since the various religions and faiths (those two words not being synonymous) are a major force in this world, why should schools fear discussing them ? Is it proper that schools should "teach" by the "ostrich method", sticking their collective heads in the sand and pretending this equation doesn't even exist ? Why are some so terrorized by such open and free  "market place"exchange of ideas ? Isn't open & free inquiry what education is all about ?
  The real truth seems to be that the only "religion" many of these administrative cretans have trouble with is the Christian brand. Many school boards seem to have no trouble teaching Islam or witchcraft..but would expel a child for praying over his/her brownbag lunch.
  I submit this is only another manifestation of the "closed mind" attitude of some such as those involved in the evolution/intelligent design debate. They would rather grasp hold of one not even proven theory, than keep an open mind..inquiring into the myriad possibles.

   " Minds like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set"...

[rex6666]

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

"Times They Are A-changin'"
Bob Dylan

Science is responsible for the technology to make this forum possible. Science works from gathering data, fossils, DNA, core samples, etc. That data is then interpreted according to empirical values (validity and control) ,subject to peer review before publication. Facts arise as acceptance,(via peer review) that the theory fits the observable data. It is a solid system and almost totally responsible for our technical advances to date. It is vital that all public schools of all levels remain secular. Religious instruction should stay in the temples for those who desire such and not imposed through public education.

  NNJ;
  Those words by a fellow named Bob Dylan in my opinion, carry no more weight than words by an alert local dogcatcher. I have long wondered how or why some folks place special import or significance on a singer/guitar player's words. In what way are they any more profound than statements made by the doctor, lawyer, farmer,butcher, baker or candlestick maker? I certainly do not need someone named Bob Dylan to tell me how to observe things I can easily observe and weigh for myself.
  Schools should remain non-partisan, but since the various religions and faiths (those two words not being synonymous) are a major force in this world, why should schools fear discussing them ? Is it proper that schools should "teach" by the "ostrich method", sticking their collective heads in the sand and pretending this equation doesn't even exist ? Why are some so terrorized by such open and free  "market place"exchange of ideas ? Isn't open & free inquiry what education is all about ?
  The real truth seems to be that the only "religion" many of these administrative cretans have trouble with is the Christian brand. Many school boards seem to have no trouble teaching Islam or witchcraft..but would expel a child for praying over his/her brownbag lunch.
  I submit this is only another manifestation of the "closed mind" attitude of some such as those involved in the evolution/intelligent design debate. They would rather grasp hold of one not even proven theory, than keep an open mind..inquiring into the myriad possibles.

   " Minds like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set"...

+1

[ironglow]

NNJ;
  My last post was not to denigrate you..if you enjoy that singer/musician, enjoy. I just don't see why some folks give special credence to something a singer would say..any more than anyone else.
  Often we hear people quote the Beatles, rolling stones etc, etc. Wonder where those guys obtained their "special gifts "..

[teamnelson]

I personally believe Christ was a Greek scholar and was fluent in Zoraster as well and had an aquaintence with Egyptian studies..
..TM7

TM7, befriending you is a challenge for certain. Your thought process is not unfamiliar; like the earlier gnostics you assume that because someone uses a word that is shared in another lexicon, they were influenced by that lexicon. So because the concepts of Christ's teachings were present in Greek philosophy, zorastrian and egyptian mysticism you assume they influenced Him. You've give credit to the creature and deny the creator; through Christ all that was made was made and exists. He is truth; anything that may ring true in any other philosophy or religion is merely shadow of that which was revealed through general revelation. To think that God was influenced by the vain and empty philosophies of men ...

[Oldshooter]

A "friend" from this site brought this to my attention last night! He spoke of hypocrisy, and I agree. I think all of history should be written and studied. Everyone involved in that history should be exposed and the things they said heard, for it is through education that we learn. And Education should not be shrouded or contrived.

I dont think Thomas Jefferson should be excluded no more than I think Barack Hussein Obama should be, and most of you know how I feel about him.

We cannot pick and choose what we teach to improve our beliefs, or our political leanings.

We, who are Christians should lead by example, not as the left would do in the same situation

For me its like drinking and cursing in front of folk you wish to witness to, It harms your testimony, not that drinking is so bad but if it makes someone turn away from the Lord because they see you doing so it is not acceptable.

I hope I made my self understood about this.

[Victor3]

 Post transferred to...

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,202938.msg1099054578.html#msg1099054578

[Graybeard]

Now I've not done a lot of study on just what it is that Texas has done but from what I understand they have effectively subverted the US Constitution and rewritten history to exclude one of the more important of this nations founders and substitued religious figures more to their liking in his place.

To me that smacks of establishment of a state religion and no matter what that religion might be even if the one we believe that's BAD POLICY. If they can estabish it then they can tear it down and forbid it just as easily when another group later comes along who disagree.

I firmly believe that what those writting and approving the Constitution had in mind was to allow EVERYONE of EVERY FAITH to have freedom to believe and worship OR NOT worship as they felt best without any state/federal government influence on how they believe and worship or not worship at all. I do not believe it was to prevent public worship but rather to prevent the government from having a say in that public worship.

I will not argue one way or the other as to the CHRISTian status of the founding fathers of this nation but will say I am convinced they were in total and mostly all individually believers in one Supreme Being commonly referred to as GOD as the creator of mankind and the ultimate giver of all rights and freedoms. I doubt all would have readily accepted the designation of CHRISTIAN but I equally doubt many would have not professed a strong believe in ONE GOD, the same GOD that is often referred to as the GOD of Abraham and from which came Jesus in the views of most even if not all.

They were very strong in their beliefs that government should not say any one religion was better or worse than any other and didn't want government dictating to them how they worshipped and that included both which religion to chose or to chose none at all. Freedom OF religion NOT freedom FROM religion is what they sought.

[skarke]

Guys, I haven't read the synopsis of the final curriculum, and if Mr. Jefferson has indeed been excluded, then that is a travesty.

Here's an example of what we have been fighting: many individuals on the Board believe in a quota based, race driven teaching of history.  They successfully lobbied the last time around substituting Famous Amos (a fine man indeed) for Thomas Edison (owner of more than a thousand patents) as an example of a great American inventor.

Now, I love cookies and all, but comparing the relative impact on history of the two, well, I tend to lean toward the incandescent light or modern electrical generation or moving pictures or........., well you get my point.

What we got was a usable text.  What we would have had if it weren't for traditionalists on the Board would have been a feel good, make sure everyone is represented no matter how insignificant their contribution version of history.

I read my kids texts here in Texas, and they are tolerable, if not as good as I'd like.

[teamnelson]

I personally believe Christ was a Greek scholar and was fluent in Zoraster as well and had an aquaintence with Egyptian studies..
..TM7

TM7, befriending you is a challenge for certain. Your thought process is not unfamiliar; like the earlier gnostics you assume that because someone uses a word that is shared in another lexicon, they were influenced by that lexicon. So because the concepts of Christ's teachings were present in Greek philosophy, zorastrian and egyptian mysticism you assume they influenced Him. You've give credit to the creature and deny the creator; through Christ all that was made was made and exists. He is truth; anything that may ring true in any other philosophy or religion is merely shadow of that which was revealed through general revelation. To think that God was influenced by the vain and empty philosophies of men ...

There's nothing radical or controversial about what I'm saying. All I'm saying is perhaps he was an educated man of the times....looks that way to me. And if he was he would like us to know it and enjoy the same thoughts and studies as himself,,,,not prescribing boundaries or limitations as yourself.


..TM7

So eternality and omniscience is more limiting than making him simply an educated man, constrained by time, space and the intellectual influences available to him for the day? There is no rational way you can say that making him merely a man is more liberating.

[teamnelson]

TM7, understood. I disagree with your conclusion, but where we would be if we all agreed? Oh, that's right, probably a public school 

[ironglow]

Now I've not done a lot of study on just what it is that Texas has done but from what I understand they have effectively subverted the US Constitution and rewritten history to exclude one of the more important of this nations founders and substitued religious figures more to their liking in his place.

To me that smacks of establishment of a state religion and no matter what that religion might be even if the one we believe that's BAD POLICY. If they can estabish it then they can tear it down and forbid it just as easily when another group later comes along who disagree.

I firmly believe that what those writting and approving the Constitution had in mind was to allow EVERYONE of EVERY FAITH to have freedom to believe and worship OR NOT worship as they felt best without any state/federal government influence on how they believe and worship or not worship at all. I do not believe it was to prevent public worship but rather to prevent the government from having a say in that public worship.

I will not argue one way or the other as to the CHRISTian status of the founding fathers of this nation but will say I am convinced they were in total and mostly all individually believers in one Supreme Being commonly referred to as GOD as the creator of mankind and the ultimate giver of all rights and freedoms. I doubt all would have readily accepted the designation of CHRISTIAN but I equally doubt many would have not professed a strong believe in ONE GOD, the same GOD that is often referred to as the GOD of Abraham and from which came Jesus in the views of most even if not all.

They were very strong in their beliefs that government should not say any one religion was better or worse than any other and didn't want government dictating to them how they worshipped and that included both which religion to chose or to chose none at all. Freedom OF religion NOT freedom FROM religion is what they sought.

  GB;
  From what I understood about the story, there were two competeing forces on the textbook commission..as usual, liberals and conservatives. The liberals wanted to teach American history only back so far as 1877..feeling everything before that was unimportant. They wanted to teach important events in recent history, such as "Hip-Hop" music etc , considering these things more important than George Washington or the Revolutionary or Civil war.
   Naturally, they sought to dismiss the part faith had in the founding of our nation...and nobody tried to instill their brand of faith as the only one.
 ...The conservatives prevailed.

[crustylicious]

You may have been "Foxed" on the 1877 issue:

Fox Needs a Liberal Dose of Education   
 http://thelieshavenotimproved.blogspot.com/2010/03/fox-needs-liberal-dose-of-education.html

"The Fox Network in recent days has repeatedly broadcast highly inaccurate information about the State Board of Education’s efforts to adopt the new social studies curriculum standards," the agency said in a press release.

What about starting the teaching of American history in 1877, leaving out the drafting of the Constitution in 1787 and decades of events after that?

Doocy said on "Fox & Friends" that Carlson was referring to suggestions in North Carolina. He didn't elaborate on why his colleague referred to the Tar Heel State while talking about Texas. We confirmed that while updating its curriculum standards, North Carolina's education board came under fire for a proposed change to spread its teaching of history over several grades so that high school juniors would only study U.S. history post-Reconstruction, after 1877. Currently in that state, U.S history after 1789 is taught in high school.

Texas has long spread its teaching of history over several grades. The Texas Education Agency said: "Texas has and always will teach U.S. History from the beginning until present day. U.S. History through Reconstruction is taught in eighth grade... U.S. history since 1877 is taught in 11th grade."