I Love Texas

[Nutso]

"falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

Which is quite similar to what a lot of these Christian extremist groups have been doing for a while. Inciting people to commit violence, in the name of religion, or racism, or whatever, shouldn't be protected by the First. In my opinion.

Inciting is not enough. There has to be actual violence. Even then its really hard to connect the abortion-clinic bomber to a pro-Life extremist group. Can't punish an entire group because a lone maniac who listened to a few meetings committed an act of violence. It's not fair to the others who didn't take their cause to the extreme.

I will assume that you are anti-gun control. How do you feel when pro-gun control talks heat up after some loon shoots up a school? Blaming gun possession for the shooting rather than the deeply disturbed maniac. Remember (I think you're old enough to remember) that old slogan, "People don't kill people, guns kill people." These people would punish all gun owners in America for the actions of one loon. The gun didn't make him kill anyone.

[Tsukiyumi]

I will assume that you are anti-gun control. How do you feel when pro-gun control talks heat up after some loon shoots up a school? Blaming gun possession for the shooting rather than the deeply disturbed maniac. Remember (I think you're old enough to remember) that old slogan, "People don't kill people, guns kill people." These people would punish all gun owners in America for the actions of one loon. The gun didn't make him kill anyone.

This is slightly different; simply owning a gun doesn't incite people to violence. Unless of course the gun is talking to them, in which case...

If there was a gun rally, and the pro-gun advocates were spouting rhetoric, and implying that violence could be justified to combat anti-gun legislation, and one of the people in the crowd later went and shot a bunch of anti-gun demonstrators, I believe the people who organized the rally should be held responsible. I personally believe incitement should be enough.

After all, it's illegal to incite a riot, and it's illegal to inspire people to kill. Otherwise, Charles Manson wouldn't be in prison. He was just exercising his right to free speech, after all.

[Nutso]

I will assume that you are anti-gun control. How do you feel when pro-gun control talks heat up after some loon shoots up a school? Blaming gun possession for the shooting rather than the deeply disturbed maniac. Remember (I think you're old enough to remember) that old slogan, "People don't kill people, guns kill people." These people would punish all gun owners in America for the actions of one loon. The gun didn't make him kill anyone.

This is slightly different; simply owning a gun doesn't incite people to violence. Unless of course the gun is talking to them, in which case...

I hope you love this clip - Sledge Hammer gets taken off suspension, takes out a sniper

If there was a gun rally, and the pro-gun advocates were spouting rhetoric, and implying that violence could be justified to combat anti-gun legislation, and one of the people in the crowd later went and shot a bunch of anti-gun demonstrators, I believe the people who organized the rally should be held responsible. I personally believe incitement should be enough.

If prosecutors feel the rhetoric incited the loon to act, the rally leaders may also be held responsible. That doesn't mean hate speech should be banned. This falls too closely with the Government deciding morals. Look what they did to civil unions. Homosexuality is immoral , so the Federal Government has chosen to deny same-sex marriages based on some archaic, outdated standard of what morality is.

After all, it's illegal to incite a riot, and it's illegal to inspire people to kill. Otherwise, Charles Manson wouldn't be in prison. He was just exercising his right to free speech, after all.

Sorry for using semantics here; Manson directly ordered his followers to kill Sharon Tate and the others. He didn't merely inspire his followers to kill, he ordered them to do it. John Gotti orders his hit-man Sammy Bull Gravano to kill one of Gotti's rivals.

By the way Tsu, I know I can't change your mind on this. However I personally have deep reservations about the Government restricting civil rights. No matter how disgusting someone's speech is, the Government cannot interfere. You and I however, can.

[Sonic Glitch]

However I personally have deep reservations about the Government restricting civil rights. No matter how disgusting someone's speech is, the Government cannot interfere. You and I however, can.

You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

[Tsukiyumi]

I hope you love this clip - Sledge Hammer gets taken off suspension, takes out a sniper

And I did love it.

If prosecutors feel the rhetoric incited the loon to act, the rally leaders may also be held responsible. That doesn't mean hate speech should be banned. This falls too closely with the Government deciding morals. Look what they did to civil unions. Homosexuality is immoral , so the Federal Government has chosen to deny same-sex marriages based on some archaic, outdated standard of what morality is.

The government deciding morals is directly tied to Christians getting their preferred candidates elected, and goes back to my first point. It shouldn't happen.

Sorry for using semantics here; Manson directly ordered his followers to kill Sharon Tate and the others. He didn't merely inspire his followers to kill, he ordered them to do it...

Yes, Manson "ordered" them to kill people; he had no real authority, and they didn't have to do it. If anti-abortionists at a rally suggest that abortion clinics should be bombed, and someone attending the rally goes and bombs one, it's pretty much the same thing; they didn't have to do it either. Just because one is an "order" and the other a "suggestion", the outcome is the same, and the people who suggested it should be held accountable. By locking Manson up, they violated his First Amendment right to free speech. All he did was talk; he never killed anyone personally...

...No matter how disgusting someone's speech is, the Government cannot interfere. You and I however, can.

Good point.

[Tyyr]

The government deciding morals is directly tied to Christians getting their preferred candidates elected, and goes back to my first point. It shouldn't happen.

That is exactly how it should happen. If a candidate can run and be elected by the majority of voters in their area then they win. Doesn't matter if you don't like their platform. If you don't like it then vote against them. That's the way the system works. Hell get up and start campaigning against them if you feel that way. Run in opposition. Rally popular support to your viewpoint and defeat them. That's the way the system works. You don't just get to muzzle a group because you don't like what they say.

[Tsukiyumi]

That's the way the system works.

Yeah, whoever can sway the idiot masses through media exposure gets elected. I'm not arguing that point. It's like giving a mentally challenged person five ones as change for a ten; you profit, and they have no idea they're getting swindled.

BTW, "That's the way it works" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

[Tyyr]

BTW, "That's the way it works" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

It's not supposed to be compelling. It's a statement of fact. Groups of voters exist, politicians get elected by appealing to these groups. If the group that they appeal to is large enough they get elected and represent that group's opinions in government. If you don't like the people getting elected, oppose them. That's the way it works.

However your method is to not bother with opposing them, you just want them muzzled so they can't say things you disagree with. That's not the way this country works. There are quite a few countries where it does work like that but I doubt anyone in their right mind is in a hurry to go to them.

Nutso and Sonic both hit the high points on why censoring people is a bad thing. The moment you make it legal to censor one group the first amendment is toast and now whoever is in power is free to shut up anyone they don't like. Sounds like a good idea at the moment since you're talking about shutting up a group you don't like, however what happens when the government decides its sick of listening to all those people whine about healthcare or the way they're running things. Suddenly pissing on the 1st won't seem like such a hot idea, but at that point the horse is out of the barn, enjoy your new police state.

However that isn't going to happen. The judiciary has ruled consistently on the 1st amendment for over 230 years and they've always come down on the side of protecting speech from those trying to censor it. Even if Congress lost its fucking mind and did try and censor a particular group the Supreme Court would strike it down so fast even the news media wouldn't be able to keep up with it.

[Tsukiyumi]

BTW, "That's the way it works" isn't exactly a compelling argument.

It's not supposed to be compelling. It's a statement of fact.

My point is that you're trying to defend the status quo. I believe the status quo is, as usual, crap.

Groups of voters exist, politicians get elected by appealing to these groups. If the group that they appeal to is large enough they get elected and represent that group's opinions in government.

Yes, and if that group of voters wants certain people discriminated against, then by God, that's what will happen! It's the American way!

If you don't like the people getting elected, oppose them. That's the way it works.

You're right! Why didn't I think of that? You can get elected with $60, right?

...Oh, right. Okay; everyone PM me for my address if you want to mail me several million dollars.

However your method is to not bother with opposing them, you just want them muzzled so they can't say things you disagree with. That's not the way this country works.

It's not so much that I disagree with what they say, so much as science and fact disagree. A hundred million morons shouldn't be able to vote out facts. But, you're right: that isn't how America works.

Nutso and Sonic both hit the high points on why censoring people is a bad thing. The moment you make it legal to censor one group the first amendment is toast and now whoever is in power is free to shut up anyone they don't like. Sounds like a good idea at the moment since you're talking about shutting up a group you don't like, however what happens when the government decides its sick of listening to all those people whine about healthcare or the way they're running things. Suddenly pissing on the 1st won't seem like such a hot idea, but at that point the horse is out of the barn, enjoy your new police state.

That whole paragraph is a massive slippery slope fallacy. I said to stop religion from holding political rallies and fundraisers, and to stop politicians from furthering religious agendas. No mention whatsoever of other groups.

However that isn't going to happen. The judiciary has ruled consistently on the 1st amendment for over 230 years and they've always come down on the side of protecting speech from those trying to censor it. Even if Congress lost its f***ing mind and did try and censor a particular group the Supreme Court would strike it down so fast even the news media wouldn't be able to keep up with it.

Yes, and since the Supreme Court now has a chief Justice, and six others who are are Christians, I'm sure they'll rule fairly in cases involving religious issues.

While we're on the subject, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the First Amendment doesn't prevent educators from suppressing student speech. Link

So much for them always protecting speech from those trying to censor it.

[Sonic Glitch]

An Update. As a future educator, and student of history, this disgusts me. Source Education should not be the tool through which a particular political or ideological position is enforced. Students should be given impartial information about both sides of the spectrum -- conservatives vs liberals, religion vs religion vs atheism, and it should include the negatives such as, (like Tsuki often mentions) the whole "Stole all your land, killed all your people" thin -- o, all in the glory of God of course.

AUSTIN, Tex. - After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.

In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin's theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.

Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.

"We are adding balance," said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. "History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left."

Battles over what to put in science and history books have taken place for years in the 20 states where state boards must adopt textbooks, most notably in California and Texas. But rarely in recent history has a group of conservative board members left such a mark on a social studies curriculum.

Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the state's large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, "They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist."

"They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians," she said. "They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world."

The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely that many changes will be made.

The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for textbook publishers, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The board's makeup will have changed by then because Dr. McLeroy lost in a primary this month to a more moderate Republican, and two others - one Democrat and one conservative Republican - announced they were not seeking re-election.

There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.

"I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state," said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. "I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution."

They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about "the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association."

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

"Republicans need a little credit for that," he said. "I think it's going to surprise some students."

Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study "the unintended consequences" of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons "the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others."

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

After the vote, Ms. Knight said, "The social conservatives have perverted accurate history to fulfill their own agenda."

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, among the usual list of economists to be studied, like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes. They also replaced the word "capitalism" throughout their texts with the "free-enterprise system."

"Let's face it, capitalism does have a negative connotation," said one conservative member, Terri Leo. "You know, 'capitalist pig!' "

In the field of sociology, another conservative member, Barbara Cargill, won passage of an amendment requiring the teaching of "the importance of personal responsibility for life choices" in a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

"The topic of sociology tends to blame society for everything," Ms. Cargill said.

Even the course on world history did not escape the board's scalpel.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term "separation between church and state.")

"The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based," Ms. Dunbar said.

[Angharrad]

An Update. As a future educator, and student of history, this disgusts me. Source Education should not be the tool through which a particular political or ideological position is enforced. Students should be given impartial information about both sides of the spectrum -- conservatives vs liberals, religion vs religion vs atheism, and it should include the negatives such as, (like Tsuki often mentions) the whole "Stole all your land, killed all your people" thin -- o, all in the glory of God of course.

Even the course on world history did not escape the board's scalpel.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term "separation between church and state.")

"The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based," Ms. Dunbar said.

Now what did Thomas Jefferson write that was so important?

[Mikey]

Where the hell is Kinky Friedman when you need him? Lord, he should've been elected.

Anyway, Sonic's right - it is disgusting. The aim of education is to... well, educate - NOT to preach a value judgment of one particualr school of thought, whether or not I agree with it.

While I believe that St. Thomas Aquinas and Calvin were certainly important philosophers, what place do their teachings (rather than biographical information) have in a secular education?

[sunnyside]

I think we're all in agreement about the proper role of history education. And even though I think Calvin should get a mention, cutting Jefferson to make room is silly.

However I think they've got some points in that things had been getting skewed by the left if they were teaching MLK but not mentioning the Panters and X, if the books only record instances where Democrats advanced civil rights legislation while avoiding instances where Republicans did, and if there wasn't at least a freakin' sidebar about personal responsibility when discussing teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders.

[Mikey]

No, they have no points. True enough, education shouldn't impart a bias to either left or right, as I mentioned. But you can't "even it up" by shifting things wrong in one direction, even if they had been slightly wrong in the other direction previously. And most importantly, as I said - Calvin, Aquinas, Luther, etc. all have a historical place; but the sunject of their teachings has no place in secular education. One may disagree with Jefferson, but his political impact demands a place in education about American history.

[Tyyr]

The biggest problem this board is having is that they weren't interested in informed opinions. Instead they declared themselves experts and decided by themselves how things should be. That's just asinine and regardless of whether or not you approve of their goals their methods sucked.