Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "new" history of the old America largely exorcises President Thomas Jefferson's role as a Founding Father in order to diminish the importance of the separation of church and state (as delineated in same First Amendment of our Constitution that guarantees our freedom of speech). Many politicians, including Founding Father John Jay, former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have stated that "America is a Christian Nation." If this dogma is allowed in our schools, how long is it before children are taught that Christians are the Native Americans and that anyone else is a guest in these Christian United States?
There is one document among omg, how many?
The Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
______
There is a difference between philosophy and religion. Thomas Jefferson said once, “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." He is referring to a philosophical way of life and that is what the U.S. was founded on ...
Christianity was a philosophy in Greece, before it became a religion. So in a sense America is a Christian Nation, philosophically speaking, but we were not founded on a Christian Religion. (there's so many different Christian Religions, it would be tough to pick one and say, yep, that's the one)
Any way, no one can rewrite history, as what's done is done and no one can undo it, but what a person can do, is interpret it, different from some one else. However, I do not believe it is the goal of these people to create a guest type citizenship mentality of our young people, but rather inspire a greater moral and ethical leadership of our young people so to participate more advanced in their communities and Make America Great Again. Lord knows we could use it, right now.
The "new" history of the old America largely exorcises President Thomas Jefferson's role as a Founding Father in order to diminish the importance of the separation of church and state (as delineated in same First Amendment of our Constitution that guarantees our freedom of speech). Many politicians, including Founding Father John Jay, former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have stated that "America is a Christian Nation." If this dogma is allowed in our schools, how long is it before children are taught that Christians are the Native Americans and that anyone else is a guest in these Christian United States?
I'm not reading all of these, mostly because the ones I read made it clear you didn't read them either. That article from the Hill actually points out more of what conservatives have done to rewrite history and censor speech.
Notice how I don't use that to say "all conservatives" are rewriting history, or suggesting that doing so is a hallmark of conservatism.
I wonder why...
Your NYT article, by the way, seems to suggest that many liberals are not in favor of rewriting history. And that first story from WND only says one thing that even vaguely relates to what you initially said. And it's frankly a stretch. The NAACP pressuring a party in a state to rename a fundraiser hardly screams rewriting history. Stupid it may be, to suggest that's an example of "liberals" apparently all wanting to rewrite history is a lie.
I'm not reading all of these, mostly because the ones I read made it clear you didn't read them either. That article from the Hill actually points out more of what conservatives have done to rewrite history and censor speech.
Notice how I don't use that to say "all conservatives" are rewriting history, or suggesting that doing so is a hallmark of conservatism.
I wonder why...
Your NYT article, by the way, seems to suggest that many liberals are not in favor of rewriting history. And that first story from WND only says one thing that even vaguely relates to what you initially said. And it's frankly a stretch. The NAACP pressuring a party in a state to rename a fundraiser hardly screams rewriting history. Stupid it may be, to suggest that's an example of "liberals" apparently all wanting to rewrite history is a lie.
I didn't say "all" liberals.
Wrong again about what I read.
I'm presenting information that has opinions from both sides. Unlike most.
Some of it is so stupid even liberals can't support it but liberal unelected educators or bureaucrats are trying to indoctrinate students in anti-America education. That much is clear.
What may be even more important is not teaching America history at all. No need to remove names from books when you can throw the books out. Its no wonder the new anarchist are the ones who know nothing about the history of the country they live in. Why not burn it down and the flag too ? If young people don't know who Abe Lincoln is how or why would they care about MLK.
A 2014 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that an abysmal 18 percent of American high school kids were proficient in US history. When colleges such as Stanford decline to require Western Civilization classes or high schools propose changing their curriculum so that history is taught only from 1877 onward (this happened in North Carolina), it’s merely a blip in our news cycle.
I'm presenting information that has opinions from both sides. Unlike most.
Some of it is so stupid even liberals can't support it but liberal unelected educators or bureaucrats are trying to indoctrinate students in anti-America education. That much is clear.
What may be even more important is not teaching America history at all. No need to remove names from books when you can throw the books out. Its no wonder the new anarchist are the ones who know nothing about the history of the country they live in. Why not burn it down and the flag too ? If young people don't know who Abe Lincoln is how or why would they care about MLK.
A 2014 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that an abysmal 18 percent of American high school kids were proficient in US history. When colleges such as Stanford decline to require Western Civilization classes or high schools propose changing their curriculum so that history is taught only from 1877 onward (this happened in North Carolina), it’s merely a blip in our news cycle.
Ok, you're right, you didn't say all liberals and I apologies for misreading what you wrote.
So you say you like differing opinions: let's test that.
What if there's a more cynical aspect to not teaching history?
Consider this; someone college students says they're a history major. What's the usual response? "What are you going to do with that?"
Education has largely been converted to purely jobs training. A certain amount of that can be important. Learning basic math is a good idea for any job. But it's not just about jobs. For most jobs, scientific literacy does not matter. What a proper science education can do though is make someone more thoughtful and observant, as well as teaching them the value of questioning things.
We have a problem where people who want to study philosophy or history are essentially viewed as useless. People are encouraged to get more pragmatic degrees, like business. The skills of which you'd probably be better learning on the job, rather than spending thousands of dollars to get a degree.
I agree, we have an education problem in this country. Characterizing it as one of mostly liberals is a dangerous move. That maybe wasn't your intent, and that's fine, but this issue is bigger than just going after social justice.
I don't think that's going to be possible considering the ethnic/demographic trends in the US. Consider SAT scores by ethnicity/race.
California has already dropped from having the highest percentage of the population with a high school diploma in the 1970s to one of the lowest today.
Democrats want to keep flooding our country with low skilled, low IQ, impoverished and often criminal immigrants, and to keep us afraid of objecting to the long-term consequences by calling us racist.
Look at their recent hysteria just over the debate on merit-based immigration.
Democrats want to keep flooding our country with low skilled, low IQ, impoverished and often criminal immigrants, and to keep us afraid of objecting to the long-term consequences by calling us racist.
Look at their recent hysteria just over the debate on merit-based immigration.
The white population is in decline in the US and around the world. I hate to sound fatalistic, but all we can do at this point is hang on tight to what we've got.
Fortunately, Democratic hysteria aside, most Americans at least do agree that we should move to a merit-based system of immigration, similar to what Canada and Australia have had for many years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
