America's very own Taliban. Lovely.

I hear that, but the fact of the matter is that a buyer as large as the state of Texas is bound to have serious influence on the textbook market in general simply by virtue of their collective purchasing power. Especially with state budgets shrinking everywhere, if a state with a marginal school board has the choice between accurate science textbooks and textbooks with Texas stupidity that cost incrementally less, it is entirely conceivable that the economic argument will win out over the education one.

I think drawing this comparission is wrong. It's not the same as the Taliban. The Texas movement is backwards but they aren't the Taliban.

Hijacking the school curriculum to teach religious truths is the exact same process that produces madrasas; it's just not as far along.

hah.

I'm actually a little disappointed in Malor's statement that this will probably not affect nationwide educational systems. It seems to be in my best interest to sabotage potential future workforce competitors, and destroying the education system so I don't have to compete against critically educated thinkers seems like the best way to do it.

[/sarcasm, just in case people think I'm being serious]

"All we are doing is reflecting what has actually happened in the country," McLeroy said in a video available below. "Somebody has got to stand up the experts."

Unbelievable. What the hell does John Calvin have to do with American history so much that he'd supercede Jefferson? Or is the point to trot out the tired claim that the Presbyterians invented Federalism?

I think it is a lot more insidious than that. At the core of it, I think the prevailing American mentality is that the only meaningful freedom is the freedom to shop. That includes the ability to shop for ideologies and world views that are divorced from reality.

If you don't like evolution, you are free to apply your money to define a new reality based on idiot pseudoscience. If you dislike the message of your traditional religion, you are free to apply your money to inventing one that glorifies greed and despises the poor. If you dislike a reality that includes the lack of weapons of mass destruction in a country of brown people you want to bomb, you are free to apply your money to re-defining that reality.

Lobster. As for our system of government. We have evolved to a constitutionally based confederacy(or union depending on your preference) with democratically elected representatives and federally appointed judges and administrators. What the US has defies definition. Each state is a sovereign state with its own taxes, laws, government. They are all under an umbrella of the constitution. I was taught democratic republic in school, which I now know is far too simplistic to capture the nature of the US.

You're right that history isn't a tangible thing, kaos. That's why I'm talking about tangible things.

Yup.

In my view, this is yet again another attempt to couch the idea of America in a context that grants primacy to Protestantism. Why else would they select a foreign religious reformer as more important to the founding than an actual founder who was the architect of the First Amendment?

I guess it does make sense if you're omitting the whole idea of separation of church and state altogether, which apparently they did. That's why I think it's a bald faced attempt to paint America as the product of Christianity rather than a product of the Enlightenment. Next thing you know, they'll want payment on back royalties.

Not trying to start too much of an argument. Granted there's a rich history to cover and a lot of things are going to end up on the cutting room floor. This is just a step in the complete wrong direction. It sounds like you agree.

The two most common terms used in school when I was a youngin was "representative democracy" and "democratic republic".

I have seriously been baffled by this for a decade. (the idea that your reality is localized) It may even be since as long as I can remember since a significant part of my reality has always been disassociated from the reality around me. I was raised Jewish and progressive during a time when southern California was very much neither.

And lets be honest here, American history in school has always been sugar coated until you reach college. It hasn't had a religious slant or editing but its always been geared to lay a foundation of loyalty to the union.

But don't mistake this for endorsement for Texas's actions. It scares the jebus out of me.

It is arguably a flaw in the logic of our government system. I think the framers thought that because they created an environment where anyone can succeed that when the persecuted flourished, they would contribute, owe allegiance and blend in with the union. I think they foresaw that splinter groups would try and monopolize the status quo and felt that checks and balances would keep their influence to a healthy accepted minimum.

Now we are witnessing religious sects flourishing with no allegiance to the union or promoting some fictional ideal from the 50's or prioritizing religion over the union. Either they are trying to kill public education or hijack the future or both.

I guess we should be thankful that Al Qaeda, while currently demonstrating significant patience, has not demonstrated the patience for a 40-50 year grass roots movement.

Reasons why Jefferson is evangelist public enemy number one?

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"he later became the founder of the University of Virginia, which was the first university in the United States at which higher education was completely separate from religious doctrine."

But, honestly, this type of indoctrination over generations is now producing "heart surgeons, scientists and lawyers, and trained professionals in education". They have had accredited universities cranking out zealots with advanced degrees for years. Now I'm definitely not saying that all of their graduates are zealots but a significant minority is. The rub is that they are certified and adequately trained, but when confronted, they prioritize personal religious beliefs and use it to advise in positions of trust.

Unfortunately, here in the US and very unlike many other nations, you don't have the option to sue a doctor for their right to practice (ie: remove his license). The only recourse you have for bad practice is a monetary malpractice suit. Medical boards are also very protective of their members and make it just about impossible to get someone's license revoked. They also hide pretty well behind "patient privacy" when it comes to things like success rates for outcomes. Your chances of making a rational decision regarding the quality of your doctor are pretty limited. Pretty much all you have to go by is where they graduated med school.

What do the reviews really tell you though? They are entirely anecdotal and there is no real way of authenticating the veracity of the information on them. For all you know, they could all be written by the doctor or his family.

The MUCH better option, if available, is to talk with nurses in the hospitals in which they practice. And unless you have some sort of an in, your chances of getting straight answers are pretty slim.

Thankfully, I'm married to such a nurse.