Texas school board changing the curriculum

[Hiro Protagonist]

Not getting myself involved.

 

You just did. Hook, line and sinker.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Not getting myself involved.

 

You just did. Hook, line and sinker.

 

Indeed. It was intentional.

[~Di]

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

 

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state. The 100+ changes in the Texas version eliminate the secular point of this nation, and paint it as a Christian nation, forged under God. Which, btw, it was not. So that's a pretty significant historical "revision."

[lord of flies]

PS: You can easily stack up over two million dead from US involvement in Iraq and Indonesia alone.

Was it deliberate, like the purges? Answer is no, your argument is invalid.

Yes, the United States support of Suharto's regime was deliberate. We knew exactly what he was doing in his "Transition to the New Order" (killing over 500,000 Indonesians). We supported his invasion and occupation of East Timor, which killed at least 160,000 people.

 

Yes, the United States' support of Saddam's regime was deliberate. We knew exactly what he was doing in the Iran-Iraq War (killing around 1,000,000 people total on both sides) but we supplied him weapons anyway. And when we used sanctions and bombing, we knew exactly what we were doing: causing the death of at least 350,000 people (some estimates put the excess infant mortality at 500,000). When we invaded them most recently, we also knew exactly what we were doing, killing at least 100,000 civilians, and most likely over 400,000.

[Orogun01]

Yes, the United States support of Suharto's regime was deliberate. We knew exactly what he was doing in his "Transition to the New Order" (killing over 500,000 Indonesians). We supported his invasion and occupation of East Timor, which killed at least 160,000 people.

 

Yes, the United States' support of Saddam's regime was deliberate. We knew exactly what he was doing in the Iran-Iraq War (killing around 1,000,000 people total on both sides) but we supplied him weapons anyway. And when we used sanctions and bombing, we knew exactly what we were doing: causing the death of at least 350,000 people (some estimates put the excess infant mortality at 500,000). When we invaded them most recently, we also knew exactly what we were doing, killing at least 100,000 civilians, and most likely over 400,000.

So your argument is that we knew about it and did nothing to stop it, therefore all those dead are on our heads. There is a difference in being a bystander not wanting to be drag into a war and a murderer that indiscriminately kills thousands.

 

I'm amazed that you didn't mention Pinochet.

[lord of flies]

There is a difference in being a bystander not wanting to be drag into a war and a murderer that indiscriminately kills thousands.

Yes, and there is a difference between giving aid to Suharto to help him massacre the left-wing of Indonesia and the people of East Timor and "being a bystander." There is a difference between giving Saddam massive military aid and encouraging him to invade Iran and "being a bystander." Edited May 20, 2010 by lord of flies

[Walsingham]

There is a difference in being a bystander not wanting to be drag into a war and a murderer that indiscriminately kills thousands.

Yes, and there is a difference between giving aid to Suharto to help him massacre the left-wing of Indonesia and the people of East Timor and "being a bystander." There is a difference between giving Saddam massive military aid and encouraging him to invade Iran and "being a bystander."

 

As usual your facts are wrong. Saddam's arms were by 1992: from Russia (50%), China (>18%), and France (>13%). Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Which is just common sense if you look at what they were using in the field. Note that Russia and France fronted the 'heroic' stand against US lead intervention. I'd have thought that would fit your notion of capitalist conspiracy far more comfortably.

[lord of flies]

As usual your facts are wrong. Saddam's arms were by 1992: from Russia (50%), China (>18%), and France (>13%). Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Which is just common sense if you look at what they were using in the field. Note that Russia and France fronted the 'heroic' stand against US lead intervention. I'd have thought that would fit your notion of capitalist conspiracy far more comfortably.

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says."

- Guardian

 

"The United States and the CIA maintained a program known as the 'Bear Spares" program whereby the United States made sure that spare parts and ammunition for Soviet or Soviet-style weaponry were available to countries which sought to reduce their dependence on the Soviets for defense needs. If the "Bear Spares" were manufactured outside the United States, then the United States could arrange for the provision of these weapons to a third country without direct involvement. Israel, for example, had a very large stockpile of Soviet weaponry and ammunition captured during its various wars. At the suggestion of the United States, the Israelis would transfer the spare parts and weapons to third countries or insurgent movements (such as the Afghan rebels and the Contras). Similarly, Egypt manufactured weapons and spare parts from Soviet designs and porvided these weapons and ammunition to the Iraqis and other countries. Egypt also served as a supplier for the Bear Spares program. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's manufacturing capabilities. The United States approved, assisted and encouraged Egypt's sale of weaponry, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

- the sworn court declaration of former NSC official Howard Teicher

[Walsingham]

Figures. Facts. Not words.

 

Yes, the US and UK supplied weapons and materiel to Iraq. But the total amount was a tiny fraction of the total. I do not seek to excuse that, mrely to point out the farcical claim that we were the ones maintaining him in military power.

 

_50%_ Communist Russian. This excludes Soviet bloc designs manufactured in Iraq itself, such as the SCUD variants and some artillery systems not to mention small arms and ammunition.

 

>18% Communist Chinese.

 

~~

 

Relevance to me is that I'd like to see these figures more widely quoted so that the pop culture notion can be brought to book, as can the way in which Russia, China and France blocked regime change from a highly suspect standpoint.

[Wrath of Dagon]

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

 

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state.

Do you have any evidence for this?

The 100+ changes in the Texas version eliminate the secular point of this nation, and paint it as a Christian nation, forged under God. Which, btw, it was not. So that's a pretty significant historical "revision."

For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings.

[Oblarg]

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

 

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state.

Do you have any evidence for this?

The 100+ changes in the Texas version eliminate the secular point of this nation, and paint it as a Christian nation, forged under God. Which, btw, it was not. So that's a pretty significant historical "revision."

For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings.

 

If you bothered to read most of what they wrote, you'd realize that most of the use of the word "god" was figurative. Most of the founding fathers were deists, not christians.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

[Oblarg]

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

 

I suggest you read up on deism before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Oblarg

[lord of flies]

Figures. Facts. Not words.

 

Yes, the US and UK supplied weapons and materiel to Iraq. But the total amount was a tiny fraction of the total. I do not seek to excuse that, mrely to point out the farcical claim that we were the ones maintaining him in military power.

 

_50%_ Communist Russian. This excludes Soviet bloc designs manufactured in Iraq itself, such as the SCUD variants and some artillery systems not to mention small arms and ammunition.

 

>18% Communist Chinese.

 

~~

 

Relevance to me is that I'd like to see these figures more widely quoted so that the pop culture notion can be brought to book, as can the way in which Russia, China and France blocked regime change from a highly suspect standpoint.

FACT: At the outbreak of the war, the Soviet Union maintained a neutral stance and wanted the two countries to make peace.

FACT: At the outbreak of the war, the United States supported the Iraqi invasion of Iran.

FACT: The United States started a program to help with the replacement of Soviet parts in order to help reduce the reliance of once-Soviet reliant countries, including Iraq, on the Soviet Union.

FACT: The United States, while it did not give huge amounts of aid in the form of US-manufactured weapons, did give huge amounts of aid in the form of weapons manufactured in other countries.

 

Yes, Iraq had started out as a Soviet ally and the Soviet Union had given significant aid to the Ba'athist regime. However, once they started invading Iran, the Soviets offered Iran weapons, and its allies in Libya and Syria sold Iran weapons.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

 

I suggest you read up on deism before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Deism (/ˈdi:iz(ə)m/[1] or /ˈdē-ˌi-zəm/)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

From wikipedia. How is this not a belief in God? And you're calling me stupid? You're one of the biggest, most ignorant idiots on this forum.

[Calax]

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

Even atheists use "OH MAH GAWD!" as an exclamation, doesn't mean that they're talking about the god of Abraham, they could be talking about Zues, or the pixie that's buried under their fingernail. God has come to be the personification something that is not explainable to most. To the founding fathers, they were christian (who wasn't?) But they didn't want to see the ideas that drove them out of England to become prevalent here.

[Gfted1]

How is this not a belief in God? And you're calling me stupid? You're one of the biggest, most ignorant idiots on this forum.

 

I think he just has a hardon for you. This is the second thread in three days where his only contribution seems to be to call you stupid.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Gfted1

[Oblarg]

Even if that was true, a deist still believes in God, no? And how can the use of the word "God" be figurative exactly?

 

I suggest you read up on deism before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Deism (/ˈdi:iz(ə)m/[1] or /ˈdē-ˌi-zəm/)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Many Deists reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings.

From wikipedia. How is this not a belief in God? And you're calling me stupid? You're one of the biggest, most ignorant idiots on this forum.

 

I don't think you really understand what you just read. I'm sorry if Wikipedia is too difficult for you.

 

I'll elaborate:

 

I never said they didn't "believe in god," though I'm sure you just love strawmanning. I did, however, say that their use of god in writing did not refer to a god who watched and punished people in the manner of the christian god, it was metaphorical. If you had actually read that paragraph you copy-pasted, you might have realized this before you posted. Deists do not believe in an active god.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Oblarg

[Hurlshort]

I'm not sure what the argument here is. The Founding Fathers were clearly more concerned with a freedom OF religion than a freedom FROM religion.

[Wrath of Dagon]

How is this not a belief in God? And you're calling me stupid? You're one of the biggest, most ignorant idiots on this forum.

 

I think he just has a hardon for you. This is the second thread in three days where his only contribution seems to be to call you stupid.

That wasn't me.

[Gfted1]

That wasn't me.

 

Oh yeah, that was K3. Eh, must just be his catchphrase then.

[Calax]

Dagon, the point still stands that the Fathers weren't outright condoning christianity or any other religion, or using said values to guide them on creating a new gvmnt. Rather, they used basic morals that were laid out in many traditions to guide them. After all it's not like they had the 10 commandments printed in the constitution or outlawed the creation of false idols.

[Thorton_AP]

Looking at it a bit closer, I think I'll side with Oblarg on this one as well.

[I want teh kotor 3]

That wasn't me.

 

Oh yeah, that was K3. Eh, must just be his catchphrase then.

 

 

Indeed. It seems that those who disagree with his logic are instantly dropped on his stupid-people list.

Edited May 21, 2010 by I want teh kotor 3

[~Di]

We already had a thread on this, and I would suggest the Guardian is not the most objective source on this kind of subject. For example the "sidelining of Thomas Jefferson" is a lie, he was taken out of one sentence in world (not American) history listing Enlightnment philosophers, since it was argued he wasn't an Enlightnment philosopher himself, but influenced by them.

 

True, but his philosophy was altered to omit his passionate support of the separation of church and state.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

Sure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0031700560.html

 

...The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War...Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis's inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln's (yes).

 

...Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular...

 

The 100+ changes in the Texas version eliminate the secular point of this nation, and paint it as a Christian nation, forged under God. Which, btw, it was not. So that's a pretty significant historical "revision."

For a secular nation, the founders sure used the word "God" a lot. And again, what evidence are you basing this on? Btw, the final curriculum hasn't been adopted yet, they're still holding public hearings.

 

We were not a nation "forged under God" until the mid-1950's, during McCarthy's reign, when congress tossed away more than 150 years of history by removing "E Pluribus Unum" (from many one) from our currency and replacing it with "In God We Trust." Those same God-loving folk decided that our original Pledge of Alligiance wasn't Christian enough, so they added the "Under God" to it at that time. I doubt the kids in Texas will ever learn that in school, however.

 

No, the changes haven't passed yet but they are expected to. The conservatives still have the majority vote.