Dear Texas: Sit down, we need to have a chat

[pink freud]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre...form_Final.pdf
Home :: Texas GOP Convention

Page 12: "We oppose the teaching of... critical thinking skills"

WTF, secede already

[highlordmugfug]

Weak minds, strong backs, just smart enough to do what you tell them: Just the way that Texas likes em.

[canuck brian]

Normally I would just say I'm not surprised, but there was a couple of things in there that I was actually pretty surprised to see.

Internet Access - We support a free and open internet -- free from intrusion, censorship, or control by government or private entities. Due to the inherent benefit of anonymity, the anonymity of users is not to be compromised for any reason, unless consented by the user; or by court order. We also oppose any mandates by the government to collect and retain records of our internet activity.

I find the one about not teaching any forms of sexual education aside from abstinence to anyone until marriage to be ridiculous. Pretty sure that hormonal teenagers are going to poke. After reading thru all of it, it kinda looks like the RPoT wants to bring 'Murica back to the 50's. The lines about recinding no-fault divorce are pretty gold.

[Blind Theory]

I read the education part of it. Pretty awesome shit if you're crazy, I suppose. They don't want to approve of critical thinking education because they think it will undermine any religious or moral beliefs set in place by parents.

Then they want to teach intelligent design in the science classroom as a legitimate scientific theory and try to hide it by saying "We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

At this point I don't really care what they believe. Trying to pass off a religious idea as scientific theory and then making it seem like they are the good guys who are compromising by teaching this stuff is sickening. Texas is one of the most conservative states out there and if anyone reverts back to the cave I bet it'll be them. And if not them, they won't be far behind.

[MFB]

PROS :

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

We recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more
authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

CONS:

We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups

[ElRay]

{Original post snipped because I fired-off something quickly, and as much as quote-mining "critical thinking" is wrong, there's so much wrong is that whole document nit-picking that one point is pointless.}

Ray

[Necris]

Family Values ― We support the affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian family values and oppose the continued assault on those values.

Support of the government affirming religious values? Read the First Amendment a few more times.

Protection of Women’s Health - Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions.

The existence of abortion clinics in no way pressures women to have abortions, there are no protocols in place in any state that give Doctors or healthcare providers the right to pressure a woman into an unwanted abortion.

Abortion Clinics - We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.

They already are liable in cases of malpractice and are held to the the same standards as other medical facilities. Find me one that isn't if you're going to assert that they aren't.

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Disturbing.

Bilingual Education – We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years.

So that is the extent of language education you support? Teaching English to non-english speakers but not teaching a foreign language to English speakers?

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

This is a sneaky way of positioning themselves to legally teach creationism in schools. If you are going to teach outright non-scientific ideas in science class you're defeating the purpose of the class. Not to mention no-one has ever been discriminated against for not believing in something like evolution unless you want to redefine discrimination to include the mere act of questioning the basis for someones belief.

[Blind Theory]

Originally Posted by MFB

stuff

You listed your first pro as "Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing. If you want to teach these things, offer a religious studies elective but don't try and force it into the core curriculum. Neil deGrasse Tyson hit the nail on the head when he said there was no tradition of scientists knocking down the doors of Sunday schools to tell them what to teach.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Blind Theory

You listed your first pro as "Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing. If you want to teach these things, offer a religious studies elective but don't try and force it into the core curriculum. Neil deGrasse Tyson hit the nail on the head when he said there was no tradition of scientists knocking down the doors of Sunday schools to tell them what to teach.

I'm guessing he just didn't recognize the code-words. If taken literally that is what should happen (and is actually what science is all about). But we all know better.

Another thing that bugs me, and has for years, is the ....ing flag worship. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't teach anything. Pure lip-service.

[MFB]

Originally Posted by Blind Theory

How, if I may ask, is that a positive thing? Trying to sneak non-science based religious theory into a classroom is not a positive thing.

What pink said is true, I mis-interpretted that as teaching evolution and ALL theories vs. just creationism which is what it really means. I should've thought about it given it being from Texas and all but I was blinded by hope that they might, just MIGHT be changing their ways.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by pink freud

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre...form_Final.pdf
Home :: Texas GOP Convention

Page 12: "We oppose the teaching of... critical thinking skills"

WTF, secede already

So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags?

Nah.

What are you guys getting all pissed off about? It's a platform pamphlet, not the law..

[MFB]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags who are teaching those same ideals to younger kids without showing them the other side of the argument as well thus making it appear as if it were the only truth? And then having those same kids go off and grow up to repeat the cycle and maybe help spread it to other states?

Maybe.

That's the larger picture here

[TemjinStrife]

Modern far-right conservatism:

Equal parts hilarious and terrifying.

[Sicarius]

Maybe you should come here and see what it's actually like?

We're all riding horses, and have oil derricks in our back yards. Everyone gets a free 10 gallon hat.


So what you're saying is that if you don't agree with how a person teaches and raises their child, and if that child grows up to become someone who believes in something drastically differing from your own experiences and teachings, then they're completely wrong?

Because that's what you're saying.


There is nothing wrong with being whatever passes as a political stance these days. It's just differing ideals and actions to solve the same problems. People just want to vilify everything they can to make themselves, and their own understandings the "right" way.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

So my entire state should secede from the country because of a bunch of idealistic conservative douche bags?

Nah.

What are you guys getting all pissed off about? It's a platform pamphlet, not the law..

For some reason Texas has more influence over national education than they should. Texas textbooks seem to end up being national textbooks.

[Sicarius]

Because of our population density, we order more books than probably any other state, so they tend to send it out our versions to other states as a "default" but I think there are other versions of text books for other states.

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school. If you don't agree with it, then be a parent and educate your kids.

Personally I don't think religion should be taught to kids until they're 10 or older, so that they can decide for themselves, instead of being raised into something.

But that's just me, I'm not going to go around bitching and complaining about "indoctrination of the youth". It's not my place to tell a parent what to do and what not to do with their kids.

Parents need to step up and interact with their own damn kids, and teach them right from wrong, and let the children decide for themselves what they should believe.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

There's nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school.

Teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause. That means there is something wrong with it.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by pink freud

Teaching creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause. That means there is something wrong with it.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How so?
1) There is no established national religion as done by Congress.
2) The US Government has no say so in what goes into a text book.

Also, if you'd like to take a gander at this article (be careful it's written by someone in Texas!)
Texas Textbooks' National Influence Is a Myth — State Board of Education | The Texas Tribune

Books are tailor made for the area that is being taught. We have no honest say so what goes into books anymore. Though I'm sure there are states in the South that use a similar version of our books, it fits with the sympathies and ideologies of the bible belt.


Have you seen the section on Creationism in a science book? You realize it's not even 3 paragraphs long? It's there as an acknowledgement that there are people who believe it, and then it goes right into the Theory of Evolution.

Also: Please, neg me so much that I go into red. If having a different opinion because I live with in this state and actually see what's going on is too much for your opinions, then it's well worth it.

[TemjinStrife]

The reason there's so little discussion of Creationism in a science textbook is because Creationism is not scientific, nor is it even a scientific theory. Therefore, there's very little to discuss from a scientific perspective.

Are we really going so far back to "Inherit The Wind" and the "Monkey Trials" of the 20s?

[Rick]

Don't judge all of us Texans.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How so?
1) There is no established national religion as done by Congress.
2) The US Government has no say so in what goes into a text book.

Also, if you'd like to take a gander at this article (be careful it's written by someone in Texas!)
Texas Textbooks' National Influence Is a Myth — State Board of Education | The Texas Tribune

Books are tailor made for the area that is being taught. We have no honest say so what goes into books anymore. Though I'm sure there are states in the South that use a similar version of our books, it fits with the sympathies and ideologies of the bible belt.


Have you seen the section on Creationism in a science book? You realize it's not even 3 paragraphs long? It's there as an acknowledgement that there are people who believe it, and then it goes right into the Theory of Evolution.

Also: Please, neg me so much that I go into red. If having a different opinion because I live with in this state and actually see what's going on is too much for your opinions, then it's well worth it.

Teaching Creationism is something entirely different than passingly mentioning that some people believe it.

Teaching Creationism in public schools violates the establishment clause because Congress ends up endorsing religion through funding the schools through the Department of Education.

Creationism shouldn't even be mentioned in a science textbook. There is nothing scientific about Creationism, thus it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. It makes as much sense as having three paragraphs about the life of Beethoven at the beginning of a Calculus textbook.

Lastly, I haven't negged you at all. Out of curiosity I took a look at your profile and indeed somebody did but it was not me.

[TemjinStrife]

Peripherally related:

[Sicarius]

It's not being "taught" in school.

A Teacher gets to the section on Evolution, "Today, we're going to talk about evolution, If not one will be offended, we'll skip over the Creationism section since I know most of you know about it already."

There might be one question on a test about it, and that's it. It's not actually "taught" or harped on, or anything else like that. Teachers wouldn't be able to get away with that shit because of how quickly the ACLU would pounce on it.

Guys, seriously, think for a minute, just because it's in the text book doesn't mean it's going to be drilled into these kids' brains. Parents teach their kids about religion and creationism from an early age.

If a teacher gets a question about it, they have to do their best to answer it with out offending anyone.

Would it be better if it were removed? Of course, but for now, the Texas editions, and other books created for other states and districts that are similar to it, will keep Creationism in it.

If you're in an area where it's not as prevalent of an issue, it probably won't be in that state's version.

[Sicarius]

Originally Posted by pink freud

Lastly, I haven't negged you at all. Out of curiosity I took a look at your profile and indeed somebody did but it was not me.

It was a general statement to anyone. Forgive me for not making that more apparent to you.

[pink freud]

Originally Posted by Sicarius

It was a general statement to anyone. Forgive me for not making that more apparent to you.

No worries. Reasoned opinion shouldn't be suppressed.