quote:– To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.”
– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”
I'm not exactly sure why they would remove Thomas Jefferson from their curriculum, but at any rate, this is pretty alarming if you ask me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They're angry at Jefferson for his crazy ideas about separation of church and state, which they've also edited out of their curriculum.
Seriously, that's why.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And Texas has now reserved itself as the but of every joke for the next 22 years now.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
They removed historical figures that they disagree with and inserted those they agree with. History should include them both. Unfortunately, education is controlled by politicians who aren't interested in history, rather ideology.
History is determined by the victor. The right is taking control all over the nation and they are undoing the similar actions of the left. History should be outside of politics. Unfortunately, the left has skewed education to the point that students don't even learn the constitution. Jefferson shouldn't be omitted and the second amendment should be required curriculum. The constitution and history of our nation shouldn't be defined by the party in charge.
History isn't silly putty to fulfill an agenda. You're just seeing the first wave of the conservative movement. They are no better than the liberals. Both have an agenda and neither should be in control of history.
What you are witnessing is politics warping history. The conservatives are undoing years of liberal bias in the schools. How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?
How about a history class without an agenda?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Jefferson shouldn't be omitted and the second amendment should be required curriculum.
I'm curious, what do you think this would accomplish?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I am not liking this change at all.
But let me note that Thomas Jefferson wasn't omitted from the history books entirely. This article from the NY Times clarifies that he was removed from a list of individuals whose writings inspired the Revolution.
The NY Times article is vastly superior to the ThinkProgress article.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
What's on the main page?
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
What does it mean to remove a person from the curriculum? They don't mention that we had a president named Thomas Jefferson?
And the bit about the democracy vs constitutional republic is true, so I don't see the problem.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
(Scott already answered that question.)
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence did not write anything that inspired the revolution?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence did not write anything that inspired the revolution?
Well the Declaration itself came out mid conflict but it certainly moved things into a new gear. Of course Mr. Jefferson had already written many things that were published in papers that other founding fathers, and common folks, would have read and been inspired by.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone.
Well, you know, it was one of the more minor revolutions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, along with George Mason and James Madison, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Constitution of Virginia, which was one of the main models used for the U.S. Constitution.
---
If all they are doing is making sure that Thomas Jefferson is not on the list, then the smart kids are going to realize pretty soon that they're getting taught an inaccurate view of history. Because they're going to cover the Declaration of Independence.
To do a more thorough job, they should either credit it to God and have Thomas Jefferson try to take the credit or time-traveling Ronald Reagan.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Actually, I don't think it was so much a revolution as a half-Sachow jump ending in the splits. But double pointz for style, yo.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Anyone read anything about how texans are responding to this?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
They struck Thomas Jefferson from the Revolution's inspirations? I'm interested to see how the right-wing nutbags handled Thomas Paine, proud atheist. Glenn Beck even named his crappy book after Paine's.
This is really tragic, though. I definitely don't want to raise a kid in the US.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd also like to see them explain the fact that, at the very least, the French Revolution, and the domestic woman's rights movement (Seneca Falls Declaration) directly borrowed language from Jefferson's Declaration.
Maybe they won't notice if one is mentioned in World History and the other in US history, but that's pretty intellectually dishonest. As a regular person I'm extremely annoyed by this, but I feel removed since I don't live in Texas. As a historian, I'm furious. This is why parents and non-professionals should only have limited control of a school's curriculum.
I go back and forth on how I feel about indoctrinating/instilling native values in children through use of the school system. Ultimately I think I've made my peace with the fact that, overbearing though it may be, it's something all nations do, and it probably serves an important function in ensuring dedicating to the longevity of the nation. Blah blah. But something like this goes way beyond that. This is what happened at the end of that TV show Jericho. This is brainwashing children into believing not just one viewpoint on history, but a radically altered viewpoint that doesn't spin things, it just omits them entirely.
If history books look like this when I have kids, I'll be teaching them myself.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit. Since that's a common and often harmful mistake people tend to make. And I can see taking out sex and gender as social constructs, because they are not (in my opinion). But taking out Jefferson? Not teaching that the Constitution doesn't permit promoting one religion over others? Disgusting.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My really large problem with this is, this is Texas. They help control the text books that reach the rest of the country.
Depending what happens in the next few months, I will probably write to all the text book publishers that put out Physics Texts, and just say that as a concerned citizen, I won't be recommending any of their texts for use in my classrooms if they alter their text books to conform to Texas' history curriculum. Its a small thing, but if enough teachers around the country do something like that, Texas' purchasing power might look less important to publishers.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And I can see taking out sex and gender as social constructs, because they are not (in my opinion)."
Your opinion is contradicted by the definition of "gender."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: My really large problem with this is, this is Texas. They help control the text books that reach the rest of the country.
Depending what happens in the next few months, I will probably write to all the text book publishers that put out Physics Texts, and just say that as a concerned citizen, I won't be recommending any of their texts for use in my classrooms if they alter their text books to conform to Texas' history curriculum. Its a small thing, but if enough teachers around the country do something like that, Texas' purchasing power might look less important to publishers.
Thankfully the digital era has greatly reduced Texas' power over national text book policy. While individual districts don't wield any power, individual states can demand books tailored to their state curricula without too much of a problem, since editing and producing books that way is so much easier with current technology.
This would have been far more disastrous and impactful 20 years ago.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ah Texas, confirming stereotypes of Texans with glee and gusto.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: History is determined by the victor. The right is taking control all over the nation and they are undoing the similar actions of the left.
As per usual your grasp of these things is hair-brained at best. The term is "history is *written* by the victors." History is "determined" by no one especially- it is interpreted in varying ways according quite often to what people find in it that is relevant to them.
"He that controls the present controls the past," is something you've harped on before. It makes me think rather seriously about how much that phenomenon actually bothers you, or whether you are only really bothered by *who* is in control. When you offhandedly dismiss abuses that you would rail against had your opposition undertaken them, you reveal your deep dishonesty. I know, you probably don't even realize that.
quote: How about a history class without an agenda?
You don't actually believe that that's possible, do you? Even if there is no overtly modern political agenda attached to what a teacher talks about, understanding history requires coming to and defending conclusions about what you learn from it.
It's not even a matter of it being hard to avoid some kind of bias. The fact is that history as a discipline is all about interpretation, and the advancement of one or another theory about what we learn. That is the value of studying history, and why history and the study of it remain forever controversial.
What do you imagine, exactly? A class where the teacher recites facts for the students to absorb? Even if you have a class like that, you have to have an agenda just to decide what parts of history are relevant to your class, and which aren't? American schools focus on European and American history so much because it's relevant to them, not because it represents a large part of the world's history. That's an agenda- the continuation of the traditional focus on western culture in America. You're railing about an agenda now, but the lack of any such agenda would open the door to years of teaching African, Chinese, middle eastern, Indian and South American history that you would then rail against as being a part of a liberal cabal to minimize the importance of western culture.
You don't want *no* agenda, you just think that what you find important or worthwhile is somehow magically correct, and therefore is not itself an agenda. I don't know how many times I've heard this moronic mantra of "no agenda" and "fair and balanced" bullcrap coming out of the mouths of people who just don't understand what an agenda actually is, and what it would actually mean not to ever have one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit.
The statement "the US is a republic" is as correct as "the US is a democracy" — anytime someone says that the US is not a democracy, they're wrong. What the US is not is a direct democracy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The University of Virginia is not going to be happy with Texas, I can tell you that....
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:What's on the main page?
You weren't curious enough to click the link? It's not NSFW, I assure you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I clicked. What is it that I was supposed to see?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And I can see taking out sex and gender as social constructs, because they are not (in my opinion)."
Your opinion is contradicted by the definition of "gender."
No. No, it isn't.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
That there was already a thread on this topic still on the main page. But I'm fine with it, this one brings new information. Namely, that they got them passed Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I clicked. What is it that I was supposed to see?
Isn't this thread an obvious copy of another thread currently on the main page? Why split the discussion up? And... I'm surprised it wasn't obvious that I meant to point this out.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit.
The statement "the US is a republic" is as correct as "the US is a democracy" — anytime someone says that the US is not a democracy, they're wrong. What the US is not is a direct democracy.
Samp, could you clarify? Because a democracy is a form of government in which the people legislate directly by vote while a republic is a form of government in which the people elect those who legislate. And we elect people to govern us, so I'm pretty sure we're a republic. Some states do put laws on ballots, but those are state issues, not federal. Thus I feel the only honest thing to say about the country as a whole is "we're a republic with strong democratic traditions."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Samp, could you clarify? Because a democracy is a form of government in which the people legislate directly by vote while a republic is a form of government in which the people elect those who legislate.
You are confusing the general term "democracy" with the specific type of government known as a "direct democracy." You do not have to be a direct democracy in order to be considered a "democracy" or a "democratic nation."
The answer to the question "Is the united states a democracy?" is yes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:I clicked. What is it that I was supposed to see?
Isn't this thread an obvious copy of another thread currently on the main page? Why split the discussion up? And... I'm surprised it wasn't obvious that I meant to point this out.
Aha!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well, while I don't know about striking Jefferson from the list of people who inspired it, I do know that Calvin probably SHOULD be included. I remember when I took a class in college in early American history I was shocked to read so much about Calvin and his political writings...having before only thought of him as relates to his religious views. So, I oviously wasn't taught about it in high school, but it was certainly worth considering the impact that Calvin had. His ideas about government and the duties of the Civil government can certainly be seen in our Constitution. He decried monarchy in his writings, believed government was safer in the hands of many rather than one or few, stressed education and believed in liberty and the right of men to be equal and free.
Here is a quote from his Institutes:
quote:The vice or imperfection of men therefore renders it safer and more tolerable for the government to be in the hands of many, that they may afford each other mutual assistance and admonition, and that if any one arrogate to himself more than is right, the many may act as censors and masters to restrain his ambition.
I find it interesting that his religious beliefs follow into his beliefs about government, that the reason one person can't be relied upon to govern many others is because of man's fallen nature.
So yes, there is no doubt Calvin's writings are part of the recipe that led ultimately to the American Revolution.
I'll ask the ridiculously obvious question - why not add references to Calvin rather than replacing Jefferson?
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Samp, so what's a republic, then?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Raventhief, That's an interesting question that I think is still very well dealt with in Federalist #10.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'll ask the ridiculously obvious question - why not add references to Calvin rather than replacing Jefferson?
Belle, I think you are giving these conservative Christians more credit than is their due. They're removing Jefferson because he says things they don't like and they care more about that than the truth.
The way it is presented, as replacing Jefferson with Calvin, it sounds like they may want to emphasize Calvin's instruction for Christians to force Christianity on their country.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the bright side, replacing the Thomas Jefferson Monument with the Calvin Monument is a bit better than replacing it with an ape from some planet.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I dunno. Depending on the ape.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:The way it is presented, as replacing Jefferson with Calvin, it sounds like they may want to emphasize Calvin's instruction for Christians to force Christianity on their country.
This is exactly correct. There is certainly a place for John Calvin in America's intellectual history, but it is hardly vital enough to appear on an elementary or high school curriculum. If you insist on going back into history for non-American sources, it makes far more sense to talk about John Locke.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think Calvin had a pretty big influence on the American Revolution, although I'd argue that it is indirect and rather convoluted and I wouldn't use his writings as the primary source of influence.
As Foust said, in terms of writings and theories of government, Locke was much, much more influential.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Samp, so what's a republic, then?
In most usages, another term for a representative democracy.
The United States is a republic. The United States is a democracy. Kind of in the same way my corolla is both a 'car' and an 'automobile.'
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Well, Squicky's link makes me even more convinced of the US' republican nature rather than democratic. Until someone tells me what a republic is which is not what the US is, I remain obstinately convinced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Well, Squicky's link makes me even more convinced of the US' republican nature rather than democratic. Until someone tells me what a republic is which is not what the US is, I remain obstinately convinced.
This is like saying "I am obstinately convinced that my corolla is an automobile and NOT a car."
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Samp, I see... That feels unsatisfying, somehow. Probably me just being all narrow. If that's the case, then (back to the original aim of this thread) what's the big deal with the BoE calling the US a constitutional republic? Wouldn't that mean "constitutional, representative democracy"?
Add: Samp my previous post was before I saw your response, sorry.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'd agree with Locke as well. Though, to be honest, are the philosophical underpinnings of the Revolution really that comprehensible to 10th graders? Maybe its proper place is in post-secondary study after all.
(Note: in Alabama early American History is studied in 10th grade...it might be different in Texas or other states)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Samp, I see... That feels unsatisfying, somehow. Probably me just being all narrow. If that's the case, then (back to the original aim of this thread) what's the big deal with the BoE calling the US a constitutional republic? Wouldn't that mean "constitutional, representative democracy"?
To me there is no big deal with that AT ALL. The only thing I correct (and the only reason I jumped in hyar) is when people make the point (or even more frequently, defend ideas BASED on the point) that the United States is "A republic, not a democracy."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To really understand the situation in England, Europe, and the U.S. during that time, you'd need to address Calvin. He's tremendously influential in so many ways.
But, I'd agree that, for most students, that'd be more for post-secondary. I'd count it as a win if we could adequately teach the Enlightenment in high school and that's the most obvious and biggest theoretical influence on the American Revolution.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One of the big ideas in the Federalist papers (especially #10) is balancing the need for representation with the problems that come along with having too many people trying to make decisions.
Really, I'd love to a capitulation of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers as a major part of high school American history.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At this juncture, I would like to insert a plug for Sarah Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates".
[ March 15, 2010, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I dunno. Depending on the ape.
The damn dirty one.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At this juncture, I would like to insert a plug for Sary Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates".
Great book. Not good for your opinion of Puritans (nasty folks, them), but a fun read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I haven't gotten to far into it (it is my bus reading) but I find myself with a better opinion of Puritans than I started with. Of course, my opinion of Puritans might not have been all that high to start.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Link [QUOTE]–
– The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
– The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.”
Ummm... ok. But...
1) I don't remember reading in the constitution where it prevents the US from promoting one religion over another. It only states "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."
Not the same thing...
2) The USA IS a Constitutional Republic.
How dare they teach their kids facts!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Geraine, isn't that the "respecting an establishment of religion" part?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Jefferson is a somewhat fun founding father. On the one hand Christians try to use quotes by him to further the "US as a Christian Nation first and foremost" concept. But then secularists also use him for his first amendment concept as proof positive that that is certainly not the case.
Small government types love his statement "The Government that governs least governs best." Federalists like that we made the Louisiana Purchase.
Jefferson was a big fan of revolution, until he saw that not all revolutions end (*cough* French *cough*)well. I think Jefferson is a striking example of a politician that improved with age.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Geraine: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The longstanding interpretation of the establishment clause is that it does exactly that- prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. In fact it goes further, barring the government from promoting *any* religion.
Let me stop you before you say that that is "only an interpretation." Yes it is, but it is an interpretation born out in legal precedent set by the supreme court for many, many years. Meaning that the constitution, as it is currently understood and used, does in fact prevent the government from doing this. You just have to keep in mind that in this context, talking about what the constitution "does" is not just talking about what it says, but what legal precedents have been established through interpretation. The constitution is bigger than a single document- it is the basis of quite a lot of legal precedent that is an effective part of our judicial and legislative process. Meaning that it does, in fact, do exactly what they don't want to admit it does.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, right now the precedent has pretty solidly ensconced the whole 'separation of church and state' thing, with few hitches — "faith based initiatives" under the accommodation interpretations, but even those are vanishing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
One of the authors of this curriculum push is Don McLeroy. Here is how he explained his method for evaluating textbooks:
"We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. The way I evaluate history textbooks is first I see how they cover Christianity and Israel. Then I see how they treat Ronald Reagan—he needs to get credit for saving the world from communism and for the good economy over the last twenty years because he lowered taxes."
And, well, there it is.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Geraine: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The longstanding interpretation of the establishment clause is that it does exactly that- prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. In fact it goes further, barring the government from promoting *any* religion.
Let me stop you before you say that that is "only an interpretation." Yes it is, but it is an interpretation born out in legal precedent set by the supreme court for many, many years. Meaning that the constitution, as it is currently understood and used, does in fact prevent the government from doing this. You just have to keep in mind that in this context, talking about what the constitution "does" is not just talking about what it says, but what legal precedents have been established through interpretation. The constitution is bigger than a single document- it is the basis of quite a lot of legal precedent that is an effective part of our judicial and legislative process. Meaning that it does, in fact, do exactly what they don't want to admit it does.
Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Here's the thing is: I agree with you on the school going too far. I think these people have some good ideas, however I think they ARE taking it too far. I think there are valid issues with the school system and what is taught in schools, but I think this is going overboard.
I don't think shools should focus on one president. Teach about all of them. I'm fine with teaching about evolution just as I am fine with them teaching creation. It doesn't have to focus on the Christian interpretation of creation. Go over Christian, Native American, Asian, and ancient interpretations of creation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Come on. That's not really a serious attempt at real dialog, is it?
Way to make me feel sorry for sticking up for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes, Geraine. Because we choose judges who rule by "how they feel on a particular day". We don't make them justify their rulings with precedent or write decisions or anything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
No. But the constitution is more than words on a page. Almost none of the statements in the constitution have unambiguous meaning. However, many of the statements in the Constitution do have larger meanings that the courts have been applying and refining since this country was founded.
It would not be possible to teach students more than one or two lessons about the requirements of the Constitution if only totally unambiguous literal meanings were allowed. There'd be one lesson where everyone read the Constitution out loud, and another where the teacher gave the unambiguous bits. Lets see . . . the requirements for various offices are pretty unambiguous!
You're rejecting the Constitution having any power if you reject the possibility of any meaning other than the literal. That's not even supporting a strict reading: that's supporting no reading.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Germaine, how did 200 years of judicial precedent wind up as "how some judge feels that day?"
Did you miss the 200 year bit?
Let me remind you--200 YEARS of judicial precedent.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm fine with teaching about evolution just as I am fine with them teaching creation. It doesn't have to focus on the Christian interpretation of creation. Go over Christian, Native American, Asian, and ancient interpretations of creation.
Come now. You think that everyone hasn't heard of Texas' Bible classes?
"We know for a fact that most courses promote Christian beliefs over those of other religions. Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices," Chancey said in a statement critical of the board's guidelines."
You can't expect a reasonable person to read this, and think that the same teachers who can't respect the Christian beliefs of other sects will magically be fair and objective with it comes to non-Western beliefs.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day. Am I correct in your assessment? So we sort of just make up the Constitution as we go along?
Uh... no. No, you are entirely incorrect. You really couldn't be further from an accurate representation either of what I said, or of the facts of the matter.
I'm confused- are you angry because you don't like that this is true, or because you don't believe that what I'm saying *is* true? Or are you just confused? I'm being serious here- your reaction was so wildly off-base, and you missed so completely the point of what was said, that I can't help but think you're being facetious either for fun, or because you really have no understanding of what I'm talking about.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Point taken. So essentially the Constitution is whatever a judge feels it is on a particular day.
You're probably going to have to understand how law works as an organic body, constantly morphed by precedent. This interpretation is further off than a conceptualization of constitutional interpretation as having started out settled.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Geraine, www.wikipedia.org search for US Constitution and read it, I've done this several times when arguing with people who think the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just going to echo Mr. Squicky's reply, and write off Geraine as someone to take seriously for now in this discussion at least. That was a total hack job, man.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: At this juncture, I would like to insert a plug for Sary Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates".
Great book. Not good for your opinion of Puritans (nasty folks, them), but a fun read.
I disagree. It's a great book, but it didn't portray the Puritans as nasty folk. At least, no more nasty than any other folk. I thought Vowell did a good job of showing more than one side of the Puritans.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I just found them a particularly intolerant people, no better than those they left behind. Rather than pursuing religious freedom of the sort we generally associate with that phrase, they just started their own religiously oppressive society.
They aren't without any redeeming value, of course, but they were far from the ideal that I'd held before. Of course it's not their fault that I began with the wrong impression.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The issue has now been covered by the Daily Show the arguments of the Board are "This guy isn't famous enough" and "someone needs to stand up to experts."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I see the pilgrims as more so strident in their desire for a pure society that England and Holland just wouldn't do, too much alternate opinion. They went to America precisely because they wanted the freedom to be as hardcore as they wanted.
That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
Although it tickles me to no end that William Bradford was a mere 4'11, I'm glad that gene does not survive in me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
If by "love between and husband and wife" you mean unquestioning obedience of a woman to her husband. Not something I find particularly worthy of admiration, but to each his own.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the Puritan attachment to hard work was also pretty weird outside of being a good drive towards early economic relevance. Ties a lot of your self-worth intrinsically to how productive you are, economically.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said, there's still alot of aspects to the puritan culture worthy of admiration. Hard work, craftsmanship, love between a husband and wife.
If by "love between and husband and wife" you mean unquestioning obedience of a woman to her husband. Not something I find particularly worthy of admiration, but to each his own.
That's not exactly how Puritanism believed a husband and wife were supposed to act. It's actually a good deal more nuanced than "Husband = King, wife = King's slave."
Samp: No, that is not it at all. While supporting a family was certainly important, it was more a function of anything worth doing is worth doing well. That was a huge part of how Puritans worshiped their God. They believed that by accomplishing good works, you were allowing God to work through you as he is the creator, and he creates marvelous works.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No, that is not it at all. While supporting a family was certainly important, it was more a function of anything worth doing is worth doing well.
Ahem. Puritan socioeconomic mores are pretty much the poster child of cultural concepts that tie self-worth to economic productivity and financial independence.
Residual american neo-puritanism remains the reason why we as an populace are so much more averse to social safety nets than the other high-income nations in the world.
quote:That's not exactly how Puritanism believed a husband and wife were supposed to act.
The american puritans in the seventeenth century very clearly subordinated women to men and demanded obedience and modesty on the part of women. This was heavily culturally enforced.
The justification was woman's descent from eve; an inherent irrationality that made her more vulnerable to error and corruption than man.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)