ID:190048
 
[EDIT: Unreasonably long content removed. The author may edit this post to insert a URL to the source at his earliest convenience. Whenever possible, long documents should be linked to, not reposted verbatim. - Lummox JR]
You should have just posted a URL to wherver you got this. I'm not sure all the naked politics is doing the forum any good anyway, but that's a discussion for another time. Please edit your message to strip out the content and just replace it with a URL or two, so people can click on the link and go themselves. Otherwise you're wasting Dantom's bandwidth.

Lummox JR
Hey, that's swell. I'm gonna go find me a nice long story with all them big words so I can look smart too.
uh........okay....

-Dagolar
Independence wrote:
Sorry it's so long, but I think you will find truth in it...
.
.
A group of separatists first fled to Holland and established a community. After 11 years, about 40 of them agreed to make the perilous journey to the New World, where they would certainly face hardships, but could live and worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

There are some important points buried in all that, or at least the half I read, but everyone has their own spin...they left out (intentionally, it appears, since this is one of the only places where they don't explain something in detail) that these people were fleeing religious tolerance in Holland. They couldn't deal with the fact that people worshipped in different ways, and decided to go somewhere where they could impose a standard religion/worship on everyone in the community.
I'll edit this post if I find anything else I don't agree with.

However, some things are strictly forbidden in this brave new educational world. For instance, we can not even teach the Ten Commandments. In fact, we can not even post them in the classroom. Why? Because their origin is religious, and that God forbid might offend someone.

I personally would strongly dislike if there was the ten commandments in a classroom. When you go to school, you don't go to learn about the bible, which you go to church to do, but you go there to learn things to help your life, although I won't go into saying religion doesn't help your life. To put something like the ten commandments in a classroom would be, in a way, forcing a religion onto people who already beleive in something else, or maybe prefer none at all. It doesn't matter what the ten commandments is all about, but would you also put any commandments of other religions in a school also, even if they mean good? Like I have said before, if you really want to learn about the ten commandments, the many differant churches that are everywhere are more than happy to teach you.
In response to Lummox JR
You're complaining about 35kb of text???
In response to Independence
Yes. It's not needed and it's like as much as 4 topics combined.
Show me the census figures that say there's more Indians alive today... there may be more people who can say they have a little bit of Indian blood, but as for an actual population, I really don't think so and will not think so until I see numbers.

As for the 10 Commandments... why do schools need to teach this? Schools can teach that murder, stealing, deception, and so forth are wrong... existence in a particular God is up to the parents at first, and ultimately up to the individual. Some might say, "We can't teach morality without God." Why not? If the only reason you can come up with that killing is wrong is that a book says so, then please don't sit next to me on the bus... I also believe in a God that condemns murder, but I believe murder is wrong in its own right and would still be wrong even if a powerful being said it was right. Even if I lose my faith in God, I still believe murder is wrong.

Of course, the most flawed part of your post is the topic... the information is neither true nor worth it.
In response to Hedgemistress
What made me laugh was the bit about Columbus discovering America - ha! It has been historically proven by people on both sides of the Atlantic that he never actually set foot on the North American continent. There are numerous ship-log and written accounts supporting this.

He did discover Cuba, though... so would that make him the founder of Cuban Communism? =)

All this crap about historical revisionism is bunk. It seems quite plain that history was already revised in the eyes of the victors/invaders/politcally powerful/etc. -- we are only just now learning the truth about what happened in many areas of history...
In response to Hedgemistress
I really don't think religion should be up to the parent. I get very uncomfortable knowing innocent children are being poisoned by uncertainty.
Interesting read to say the least....
historical accuracy = partially; biased = of course
though I agree that some professors teach that America has had a shameful history...in many ways it has, but than at those times, it was "acceptable" behavior (slavery, theft of land, religous intollerence) [sarcasm]and to think of how we have evolved.[/sarcasm]
In response to digitalmouse
digitalmouse wrote:
What made me laugh was the bit about Columbus discovering America - ha! It has been historically proven by people on both sides of the Atlantic that he never actually set foot on the North American continent. There are numerous ship-log and written accounts supporting this.

He did discover Cuba, though... so would that make him the founder of Cuban Communism? =)

All this crap about historical revisionism is bunk. It seems quite plain that history was already revised in the eyes of the victors/invaders/politcally powerful/etc. -- we are only just now learning the truth about what happened in many areas of history...

AAAAH! He's one of them!

On a more serious note, history is by nature subjective; even the most impartial historian cannot resist imparting cultural bias, nor can the most strident historian guarantee that all their information is correct. And for most of our history, none of the historians involved were anywhere near the most impartial or thorough; keep in mind that the victors all eventually did lose, and that our main thread of Western history comes not from the most powerful but from the most trendy (although the degree of separation between these two is somewhat debatable). We're not learning the "truth"... we're just finding a greater diversity of possible histories, each of varying plausibility.

That said, I do think that that particular point is largely bunk. It's reasonable enough as a warning of what could happen if existing trends got out of control, but not quite so accurate as a statement of present conditions. I'm still fairly secure in my trust in the concept of academic impartiality. Sure, academia does tend to attract its share of wackos, but a few nutcases do not constitute a vast liberal conspiracy. Or maybe they do, because it would take a really powerful conspiracy to do everything the (unnamed) author claims--cuz if half this stuff is true, gee, the school system has changed a lot in the past year and a half.
In response to Leftley
Sure, academia does tend to attract its share of wackos, but a few nutcases do not constitute a vast liberal conspiracy.

At least he's not talking about the vast liberal conspiracy to control the media. I hear about that all the time, everywhere... on the radio, in the newspaper, on all the cable news programs. Whatever this "media" is that the liberals are controlling, they'd better watch out, 'cause all the news outlets are onto their little game!
In response to Independence
Independence wrote:
You're complaining about 35kb of text???

The size isn't terrible, but I don't know if it sets a very good precedent to grab political screeds off the Internet and paste them into the forums. But I guess it's not specifically prohibited in the Help section... yet. :)
In response to Hedgemistress
The propaganda machine is unreal. If you tune into a news channel, and really listen to what some of the reporters and headlines have to say, some of it just does not make sense, but they still report on it. Why do they do this? I no longer watch a load of news channels because of that...probably doesn't make a big difference anyway. The trick? Keep your brain open when getting news output.

-Dagolar
In response to Dagolar
Labelling the news a propaganda machine is what you call keeping an open mind? I notice you call the news a propaganda machine and you call the news unreal, but you have a hard time saying exactly what it is on the news you're taking exception to.

I have labelled what I'm taking exception to: conservative anchors and commentators and editors and talk show hosts all decrying how there's no conservative voices. I don't believe the news is a propaganda machine... I believe individual newspersons and outlets will have some bias, as they are humans and human institutions.
In response to Hedgemistress
Well you notice wrong! I said it is good to keep an open mind when watching the news, I did not label the news itself the propaganda machine. It plays a part in it though, and it's good to be aware of that.

Besides that, as much as I'd like to go into detail about exactly what it is that I have a hard time swallowing on the news, I think people can live without it. If people want the specifics of my opinions, they can ask for them...

-Dagolar
In response to Dagolar
If people want the specifics of my opinions, they can ask for them...

I just did! You've obviously got nothing.
In response to Dareb
There used to be a christian denomination that would not allow children to me members, becuase they believed it was'nt right to force a child, who didnt really know what they were doing, in a religion that when they grow up, they might not really believe in. I dont remember the name, and they werent actually that great of a group, and were eventually egstinguished by the all powerfull(at the time)Catholic Church. Just to show you that a few people, at least at one time, have shared your opinion.
Page: 1 2