So now only the “wacko-left” describes the US as a democracy?
Or rather, now that the [your epithet here]-right has decided this week to attack the idea that the US is a democracy, anyone who doesn’t immediately line up in agreement is “wacko-left”.
The right-thinkers. Duh.
When we’re fightin’ terrists and tha Axis o’ Evil, we’s a democracy.
When them liberals get a majority in congress, we’s a republic, so majority rule and progressive taxation are wrong.
Ya got it?
Technically, wouldn’t the party of no govern through a Republican’tsy?
IIRC, the Tex Books standards also seek to emphasize the reference in the Declaration is Independence to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and the “Creator” as an abvious attempt to push the Religious Right belief the Christianity deserves credit for Americans’ freedom.
But IMO they are misinterpreting the meaning. “Nature’s God” is not the God of the Bible.
Nowadays, we take freedom and equality for granted, and the controversey is over whether God or some secular reasoning is responsible for them. But at the time of the Revolution, the presence of God was taken for granted and the controversey was over whether the people were entitled to rights or whether God granted the King the divine right to rule.
The latter had been the tradition in Christendom for over a millenium.
If the FFs had cited Bible references it might be a little harder to argue against, but they’re not there. Instead, I think “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” means that the FFs looked at the world and extrapolated the idea of human rights from there. The references to God and the Creator is an attmept to establish some sort of authority that went over the King’s head. They don’t refer to any miracles.
And yet conservatives act like the FFs were as well-connected to the Almighty as were the writers of the King James Version. :rolleyes:
This makes sense, as a calculated and deliberate “slap in the face” to Europe, and the concept of the “divine right of kings”.
Just when I thought America couldn’t get any dumber, these clowns come along to make sure the American educational system gets flushed even further down the toilet. :mad:
What really gets me steamed the most at this revisionist [del]bullshit[/del] history is the inclusion of Jefferson Davis on an equal standing with Abraham Lincoln??? 
Let me see if I have this correct. Jefferson Davis was the head of a country that was at war with the United States of America. So, we are to include his writings and speeches in our textbooks to give students a “balanced” view of history?
Well, why stop at Jefferson Davis? How about the writings of King George III describing what a bunch of ungrateful, arrogant bastards those colonists were?
And why stop there? Why not toss in the writings of Hirohito and Hitler?
And heck, why not make the dictionary lose its liberal bias too? Under the word “nuclear” make “NOOK-YOU-LAR” the only accepted pronunciation. Well, our former Commandable In Chief used that pronunciation and he’s from the Lone Star State so that would be readily accepted by the Texas State Board of Education don’t you think?
Kenya.
This is a perfect example of how disingenuous these people are. On the one hand, they want to emphasize the role of Republicans in the civil rights movement (while ignoring the complexities of the Democratic and Republican party demographics and historic realignment of the South due to the Southern strategy).
At the same time, they promote Jefferson Davis to an equal footing with Lincoln–a Republican. One would think that they would seize onto this opportunity to praise Republicans…but then the veneer between the historical Southern legalized racism and the institutional (but implicit) racism of contemporary America could not be maintained. After all, these are the sorts of people who complain about not being able to fly the Confederate flag without controversy.
What afterlife? There’s no such thing.
I know that, and you know that, but them?
[HOBBY HORSE]
I wish that more educators would read Lewis Carroll’s Symbolic Logic (intended to be apprehensible to Victorian children aged ~11 years who would shortly be learning formal logic from somewhat drier texts) and ask themselves if modern children have some* physical *limitation which makes the subject of logic inaccessible to them, or if they aren’t merely being intellectually stunted to no good purpose.
Why the hell isn’t logic taught in grade school anymore? Woudln’t a general population of people who are capable of critical thought & analysis produce some benefits for us?
[/HOBBY HORSE]
Exactly what I was going to say regarding the PRC. The whole “we are a republic, not a democracy” argument is just an strange fixation on the names “republican” and “democrat” in the USA’s two dominant political parties without regard to the history behind those names; they’re not refelective of some kind of decades-long ideological struggle to establish the country as either a republic or a pure democracy.
Today’s LA Times weighs in on the issue:
You guys are aware of course that all this sturm und drang over teaching creationism in school is just a backlash resulting from left-wing attempts to quash religion in the first place don’t you? When I was in school the only religious thing we were “taught” was by virtue of Christmas plays containing Jesus, a manger, and three wise men, with most of the learning emphasis placed on what were gold, frankincense and myrrh.
It wasn’t until the left began trying to remove every bit of religious symbolism (Christian, that is. Curiously nobody seems to mind other forms of religious expression) from public view and verbally assailing religion outright that religious people on the right began trying to force religious teaching in schools to begin with.
And don’t forget, one of the principles this country is founded upon is the principle of religious freedom - a freedom protected by the establishment clause in the Constitution. Lefties are real big on government prohibiting that “establishment” thing and taking it to ridiculous lengths, but somehow never pay any attention to the rest of that sentence which reads “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not mean restricting it to churches and private homes. The whole idea is that people should be free to think and believe and practice their religion as they see fit, free from government interference. So it’s only natural that when certain people become politically invested in trying to quash that religious expression, it’s believers are going to become politically invested in trying to promote it.
Nobody minds other forms of religious expression because nobody puts them in schools, you twit.
I would posit they don’t mind them because they aren’t primarily associated with America and traditional American values.
Maybe they should, just to be fair. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, why the hell not.
No, usually it’s more a case of it’s gotta be christian and it’s gotta be the right type of christian. So, it’s not about religious freedom when “they” push religion, it’s the opposite because they want to promote their brand only. But watch the shit storm if anyone wants to teach about (let’s pick the most obvious) Islam.
Freeedom for them but not for the others? I think so.
Speaking for myself, I’d be quite happy if people were taught about all religions in school. Religion is an important element in other cultures worldwide and is as apt a subject with regard to other counties around the world as are their geographic layout, agriculture, economic systems and gross national product.
We are in full agreement. A class in comparative religion (as it is sometimes called) would be a good idea. Students would learn that there are more similarities than differences, and that someone is not The Enemy or The Heretic, just because they go to some different church or temple.