Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools

State's education board to consider adding Christianity's role in American history to curriculum

The Christian right is making a fresh push to force religion onto the school curriculum in Texas with the state's education board about to consider recommendations that children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God.

Members of a panel of experts appointed by the board to revise the state's history curriculum, who include a Christian fundamentalist preacher who says he is fighting a war for America's moral soul, want lessons to emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US and that religion is a civic virtue.

Opponents have decried the move as an attempt to insert religious teachings in to the classroom by stealth, similar to the Christian right's partially successful attempt to limit the teaching of evolution in biology lessons in Texas.

"Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools"
Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 22 July 2009 18.28 BST
---

Hey, you skeptics, atheists, critical thinkers, historians, and anyone with a brain in Texas, please get on this and slap some sense into these twits! Srsly, ppl. Look, while I admit there were likely many American colonists who were Christians who helped in the fight for independence and some even helped form and run our new government, they were not all Christian and furthermore who do we need to even mention the "role of faith" in the revolution? Separation of church and state mean just that, including schools. If you really want that angle, that's why there's religious-based private schools. Funny thing is most Catholic school give a better education of evolution and other subjects than public schools... but I digress. The point is this is just another attempt to put God (the Christian verity) into public schools and that is just not right. Some of these idiots needs to read the Jefferson Bible before spouting this crap. If we are gonna do this, what about the help through faith of other religions? I know such things happened so why not praise those efforts, too? Oh, wait, those religious faiths are false? Well, no more false than the Christian type...

Newsweek Questionable Cover Choice

So, while I am always dubious of conspiracy claims, as a Communication student, akin to a journalist student but in a much broader sense, this is more in line with reality than many people, including skeptics, realize or like to admit. While I do not know the specifics of this example, I will say I question why this apparent choice was made. Now, is this same article in the US version? Maybe. (I would hope so.) Whether this is the "evil" US government trying to keep its people ignorant, or a business choice by Newsweek to keep its profits up, it is a disturbing trend that should be openly discussed... if you can get enough Americans interested. It has been my experience during class that the exploitative nature of capitalism in America is sickening yet the one thing more so is what sometimes appears as the apparent complacency of the American public. That is to say, Americans would rather keep read the human interest story than the more dire implications of the failed handling of the Afghanistan war. How very sad indeed...

Burden of Proof

The concept of "burden of proof" is simple: where or to whom supporting evidence to a position or assertion is assigned. In the scientific method, this burden is placed upon those who make a claim. Why? Science cannot prove a negative; it can, however, prove trends (positives). It is also practical, since any observation, especially those that are extraordinary, can be accurate, incomplete, askew, or intentionally false. This same logic is applied to the US legal system, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In the UK, it is the opposite, where the defendant is required to prove their innocence. The logic for this, imo, is from a optimistic since of civility and honesty from people. Basically, a plaintiff is presumed not to speak of otherwise damaging incrimination without due cause. Since a pragmatic look at reality proves this idealized since of (British) honestly to be very much unreliable or outright false, or at least untypical, the system is thus inherently flawed. While the US version, even in pristine condition, is not perfect, it is inherently more logical and just (as defined by modern western ideals of the terms).

Why am I bringing this up? 'Cause some out there like to this the skeptics, dreaded debunkers that we are often accused of (and not necessarily without cause), should be the ones to prove certain claims as false. Srsly? I doubt those in America would like that logic used on them when in our court system. As for people in a UK-based system, I argue that the stance, especially in a scientific endeavor towards the reality of the situation, is lacking in logic, Still, how the court system in either country is set up has no baring on how the scientific methodology works. To this end, I do not understand why anyone who wants to be taken seriously by science would not want to have its evidence accepted by its methods. Considering the track record of the scientific method, minus the human factors for bias or idiocy, the only thing special pleading does is make your argument or claim look that much more like bullshit or half-baked.

Vote Early, Vote Often!

Short little non-writing blip about voting for all you Americans out there. VOTE! Even if you think things are rigged, even if you don't like the candidates (there are more than two, ya know!), even if you think the energy elite run the planet, VOTE! Play the game, follow the song and dance; this way, if things don't go your way, then you can raise all holy hell and they got nothing on you. There are a lot of big issues, too, on the ballets like doctor prescribed drugs to hasten death for terminally ill patients (Initiative 1000) in Washington state or the anti-gay marriage bill (Prop 8) in California. Vote for the good of the country, not yourself. Vote based not on the enforcement of your religious beliefs on others but on what will benefit the most Americans. Freedom from and of religion, that is a key part of every election. Human rights and dignity are also in the balance. Show the rest of the world that the "leading" democracy is actually worthy of the title. Remember: vote early, vote often; that is, don't put it off and do it consistently. (Sorry, mayor Daily.)

"The Republican Party has nominated John McCain, the senior United States Senator from Arizona as its nominee; the Democratic Party has nominated Barack Obama, the junior United States Senator from Illinois, as its nominee. The Libertarian Party has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr, the Constitution Party pastor and radio talk show host Chuck Baldwin, and the Green Party former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Ralph Nader declined to seek the Green Party nomination and is running as an independent candidate." -United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Wikipedia

"Initiative 1000 (I-1000) is a ballot measure dealing with aid in dying that will be on the ballot in the US state of Washington in the November 4, 2008 general election. The effort was started by former Governor Booth Gardner. Supporters of I-1000 submitted about 310,000 petition signatures from registered voters, surpassing the state's requirement of 225,000 valid signatures for ballot status. Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the initiative July 25, 2008 after confirming at least 224,880 signatures to be valid." -Initiative 1000 - Wikipedia

"Proposition 8 is an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot, titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition will "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."" -California Proposition 8 (2008) - Wikipedia

Edit: Obama wins! Anti-gay marriage wins... I-1000 wins!