Texas Board of Education at it again Banning textbooks

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Just a gentle reminder....The killing fields of Cambodia were run by Secular Humanists...

Shouldn't we put that in those textbooks as well?

Those people weren't humanists by any definition of the word, secular or otherwise.

Klansmen call themselves Christians. Do you?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

*snip*
Why does no one question WHY Texas has so much influence? Population wise, it's a large(ish) state, but certainly not the largest. I simply don't get it.

have we been reading the same thread? it seems that answer has been done to death!
a) large student population of Texas vs. everywhere else except California which at the moment is not in the financial position to be influencing anyone

b) publishing prices which dictate that very large runs of books are going to be much more cost effective than having smaller states go with different publishers, or different books

c) lack of staff in other states to review the number of books for quality to suggest other choices.

d) I know there were some other very good reasons, but these are the ones that immediately spring to mind

[Graham]

Originally Posted by nguirado

It was Christians since the earliest times who advocated for the slaves, eventually eliminating it in Europe and, later on, here in the US. Slavery still exists in communist countries. Communists are usually atheists.

We covered this in the other thread. It's a list of the countries mentioned in the wiki article on modern day slavery.

Including:

Illegal enslavement of agricultural labor persists in Florida in the United States. The Modern-Day Slavery Museum documents seven cases, involving over 1,000 people kept in slavery, of farm labor servitude successfully prosecuted in the US courts there in the past fifteen years. Singling out Florida may give a false impression, since, in the 1980s, cases involving agricultural slavery in the USA were prosecuted across the Southeast states

The list is obviously not all-inclusive, but it does give an idea of how widespread the issue is.

To update the wiki list with the political system:

Sudan: Muslim/Christian (Authoritarian state, but technically democracy)
China: Buddhist/Taoist. (Single-party state, Communist)
Nepal: Hindu. (Democracy)
India: Hindu/Muslim. (Democracy)
Brazil: Christianity. (Democracy)
Mauritania: Muslim. (Democracy)
Niger: Muslim. (Democracy)
Iraq: Muslim. (Democracy)
Ivory Coast: Muslim/Christian. (Democracy)
Haiti: Christian. (Democracy)

As you can see, there's only one communist country on that list. All the others are democracies with strong religious roots.

Graham

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by nguirado

1. Witchcraft: I think most of that violence was popular, meaning that the Church didn't go looking for witches

Church or general public, it was Christians doing the killing. And the public was doing it with the support of the church.

2. America. Disease happens. I don't think you're going to hold a grudge against Mongolians for bringing the plague.

I wasn't talking about the "new cultures meet; they swap diseases; the one previously more isolated dies more." I was referring to the smallpox-infested blankets deliberately given to Native tribes in an attempt to kill them.

3. Slavery. Yes. I agree that slavery as practiced in the US was especially bad because it was of the chattel type, meaning that they had no human rights.
Slavery was a universal condition. You know that a healthy percentage (maybe the majority) of ancient Greeks were slaves.

Slavery of ancient Greece is not directly relevant to Texans today. Slavery less than 150 years ago, in this nation, is still having an impact on politics and social dynamics.

4. ... American racism is kind of unique, tied up as it was with the Enlightenment idea, Southern economics, and slavery. I wouldn't use it as an example of the Christian view of race. Or, I don't know of any miscegenation laws in Europe.

It was very much a Christian view of race. I'm not claiming it's "the" Christian view--but it "separate but equal," and the claim that different races shouldn't marry (or rather, that White people shouldn't marry people who weren't White; nowhere did we have laws preventing a Black person from marrying an Asian person) was supported by Christian arguments. These same arguments are being used again to insist that two men or two women should not marry, because it's against some people's religion.

I am not saying "Christianity has been a vile force throughout history." I am saying that glossing over these details, and showing Islam or other religions as power-hungry or oppressive or violent, is skewed.

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

is it appropriate for non-Texans (or Texans for that matter) to try to influence the direction of Texas' texbook standards?

It is if they're using tax dollars to promote a religion.

Why does no one question WHY Texas has so much influence? Population wise, it's a large(ish) state, but certainly not the largest. I simply don't get it.

It's the second-largest state by population; it and California both have this much influence over publishers. California doesn't get the same kind of flak (it does get some) because its ideologies don't hit the "religion" button in the public debate arena.

[Joebill]

Hmm... just a few comments.

I have read hundreds of books about the history of this planet covering millenia.

One thing I have noticed is that some groups will use a handy reason to excuse their actions, whatever that actikon might be. It isn't always religious althoguh there have been plenty of reasons that were/are religious.

I'm not excusing anyone's actions.

I'm just saying, some will make up a reason, then kill.

As for the small pox blankets. A Native American couple I knew about 1993, online, had done extensive research on that subject. While the story is widely believed, they couldn't find any evidence of such 'gifts'. Other versions say it was clothing.

They found that an upsurge in such stories happened after a movie Richard Widmark was in, as a US Army officer in the 1800s, finding that a group of Native Americans had been given 'clothes worn by whites who had died of small pox'.

Since many early explorers had small pox pustules on their bodies, it would have been easy for them to unknowningly transfer their diseases just visiting Native American villages.

As for slavery. I grew up during Segregation in the U.S. African-Americans didn't go to the stores in town, etc. they had their own store, their own churches, etc. They couldn't use the town swiming pool. They had a separate school, poorly built and rat infested. The local bus station, separate seats, water fountain, restroom.

I knew people who misquoted the Christian Bible to justify Segregation. My relatives told me the similar claims were made to justify slavery.

I guess I should point out my Comanche ancestors took white slaves back in the 1800s Gregorian.

Oh, and the witches were hunted. By the Good Christians. Please don't think otherwise. They were working hard to save those who they felt had gone astray. They were worried about the 'witches' souls. I think they were scum for doing such evil to people who they didn't like.

I don't do any of that bad stuff.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Joebill

As for the small pox blankets. A Native American couple I knew about 1993, online, had done extensive research on that subject. While the story is widely believed, they couldn't find any evidence of such 'gifts'. Other versions say it was clothing.

They found that an upsurge in such stories happened after a movie Richard Widmark was in, as a US Army officer in the 1800s, finding that a group of Native Americans had been given 'clothes worn by whites who had died of small pox'.

Since many early explorers had small pox pustules on their bodies, it would have been easy for them to unknowningly transfer their diseases just visiting Native American villages.

Smallpox did greatly reduce the Native American population, the only question is how much, if any, was the result of deliberate infection. I did a quick Google search and, although I didn't see where the practice was widespread, I did find this in Wikipedia:

One of the most contentious issues relating to disease depopulation in the Americas concerns the degree to which Europeans deliberately infected indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox. [Noble David] Cook asserts that there is no evidence that the Spanish attempted to infect the American natives.

...In Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763: ... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort—an early example of biological warfare—which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer.

...Historian David Stannard is of the opinion that the indigenous peoples of America (including Hawaii) were the victims of a "Euro-American genocidal war." While conceding that the majority of the indigenous peoples fell victim to the ravages of European disease, he estimates that almost 100 million died in what he calls the American Holocaust. Stannard's perspective has been joined by Kirkpatrick Sale, Ben Kiernan, Lenore A. Stiffarm, and Phil Lane, Jr., among others; the perspective has been further refined by Ward Churchill, who has said "it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed."

An article entitled "Early Biological War on Native Americans" at http://academic.udayton.edu/health/s.../00intro02.htm states: Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent...

See also http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-with-smallpox

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really? What is your source for this very strange claim?

And in what way is it relevant for Texas? Or do you mean that because the US kind of let that genocide continue on purpose it is relevant? (source: Samatha Power: 'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide).

It's not a strange comment. To explain why will take a long post, please bear with me and read to the end...

My observational definition of a "secular humanist" is a person who eschews all common religions (and is usually an atheist) and tries to live by rational decisions. Strictly observational, not doctrinal.

For all the people who pride themselves on their rationality, we'll use mathematics as the starting point. I think we can all agree that mathematics is strictly rational. It is totally moral free, as well, as I will describe.

What is 2 + 2 equal? 4? I say 10, but I can live with 11. Why not? They're all correct. It all has to do with your underlying postulates. 2 + 2 = 11 is correct - for number in base 3. 2 + 2 = 10 is correct in base 4. 2 + 2 = 4 is correct for base 5 and above.

This isn't cheating. All mathematics have to a starting set of assumptions, called postulates (or axioms). Which set is right? Why, all of them! Each one leads to a different mathematics. Euclidean Geometry was based on a particular set of assumptions, change one of the assumptions and, voila, a new non-Euclidean geometry. The only way to say whether a mathematic is "valid" is if it's calculations match up with some measurements in the "real world". If they don't, they may not be "valid" but they're still perfectly rational, and may match up with something somewhere in the Multiverse (or Macrocosmic All, if your prefer).

The underlying reason (rationality) is the same, but the results are wildly different, because the postulates are different.

So...

(Parodying the Capital One Barbarian Commercials)

What's in your postulate base?

You can be a total rational person, as we mathematically describe it, and still be a genocidal monster. If your postulate base says that the only reason why the Marxism dialectic had failed in history was because of an unwillingness to follow the Communist Manifesto to it's logical extreme, without any mercy for people who didn't follow the worldview, and you get Pol Pot. Rationality isn't the cause, it's the method. The cause is the postulates.

The rationalists here, want to make the irrational religious postulates go away. Stamp them out, because they are irrational. Read the posts. I don't think I missing the points they brought up.

The one advantage of those irrational religious postulates is that they are OPEN. They believers/followers will cheerfully hand you a copy of them. You can easily know what they are. Just read them.

I can't learn the postulate bases of the posters who complain about the Texas book choices. They seem to be carefully hidden, perhaps even from themselves. They seem to pride themselves on their rationality, but that doesn't explain anything. What do they think something is right and wrong, and why? If you keep peeling at the onion (so to speak), you get the Munchausen Trilemma, which always ends at the postulate base. I believe this is correct because I believe. Period. And it doesn't matter whether you're talking the Ten Commandments or Fabian Socialism. (Or Mayan theology, for that matter.)

That's why I mentioned the killing fields of Cambodia. As a reminder to all rationalists that it isn't the rationality (or lack thereof) where the problems are, it's the postulate base. And that vicious, evil, people aren't just limited to the groups they don't respect or write off (stupid or misguided or insane). They can be just as rational as you are, and even share many of your postulate bases (though not all)...and be a whole lot more nasty. All you have to do is change a few underlying beliefs, (none of which you can rational prove to be true), and run it through the same rationality.....

And THAT"S something every school kid REALLY needs to learn.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

An article entitled "Early Biological War on Native Americans" at http://academic.udayton.edu/health/s.../00intro02.htm states: Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent...

On a tangential note, I highly recommend this book (which I've just skimmed through and-- though it mentions more recent and modern times-- it doesn't seem to mention smallpox blankets.)

http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Poison-A...dp/1590201779/

(Also recommended the other, unrelated books by the same author.)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It's not a strange comment. To explain why will take a long post, please bear with me and read to the end...

My observational definition of a "secular humanist" is a person who eschews all common religions (and is usually an atheist) and tries to live by rational decisions. Strictly observational, not doctrinal.

So you have made up you own definition of "secular humanist" (a lot of necessary parts are missing). Of course you can do that but why?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

So you have made up you own definition of "secular humanist" (a lot of necessary parts are missing). Of course you can do that but why?

I said it was observational, not doctrinal. Please fill in the blanks, i'll listen attentively.

[WT Sharpe]

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the Secular Humanists for their definition of Secular Humanism? Here's how the Council for Secular Humanism defines it:

What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...t&section=main

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Wouldn't it make more sense to ask the Secular Humanists for their definition of Secular Humanism? Here's how the Council for Secular Humanism defines it:

What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Except this one? A conviction that there should be no other convictions? And by what standard do you judge.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

How about Godel's incompleteness theorem? It says that science and mathematics can never know everything.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

That one bites it's own tail. What may be good for an individual may be bad for humanity in general, and vice versa. (eugenics, anyone?)

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

There's no such thing as objective truth. Weight of measured evidence, yes, objective truth - no such animal...

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Even if the outlook of those who differ from us is to wipe us off the map and eliminate our intellectual and artistic achievements?

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Judging people? By what standard? And with or without consent of the judged? And if they don't measure up, what? Eliminate them?

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Conviction? Belief? There's a difference? Note, I'm referring to the concept, not what the concept is applied to. Both are statements of faith. Just faith in different things...(And having watched and read about the human animal in action, just as silly)

Source: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index...t&section=main[/QUOTE]


Of course, I'm just a surly curmudgeon, who breaks out in hives when I hear the term "making a better world for-", because it's always been at my expense. And I'm tired of picking up the tab....

[kennyc]

Well Ralph, you can argue against the platform all you want, but that doesn't change it.

[Greg Anos]

What changes in the Secular Humanist document above to make it suitable for Pol Pot? Let's play with the text a little....


* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Change that to - "A conviction [that a classless society will provide the maximum benefit for humanity, and all dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by [ delete "each individual" and replace with "that standard"] and not simply accepted on faith.


* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, [in support of building a classless society], rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A simple insertion



* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

delete "both the individual and", Leaving - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for humankind in general.



* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

(Unchanged - Objective values are inherent to Marxism.)



* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

(Big change - Delete this one...)


* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

(Unchanged)


* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I]delete "an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance", Leaving - A conviction that with reason, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. [/I]


Not a whole lot of changes, actually....

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well Ralph, you can argue against the platform all you want, but that doesn't change it.

Of course not. Just pointing out how it is closer to killing fields of Cambodia from secular humanism than it is the Texas textbooks you seem to dislike to your favorite Christian atrocity...