Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

Sorry, I can't see any connection to attempting to influence school curriculums or textbooks, except indirectly at best. The issue you raise seems more closely related to stem-cell research, also affected by moral issues. Conflicts between moral concerns and scholarship are a different issue. Once again, I suggest you take it to the appropriate thread. In the meantime, let me refresh your memory about the Forum Guidelines:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

​

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

'Nuf said?--Percy

I dunno. Google was where I found the reference in the first place, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. I believe I searched for "michael savage awarded" and found a tossoff phrase on some website about "Michael Savage, who was recently awarded by the AP," etc. Oh, yeah. Rosanne. Never liked that show either, really.

Percy, secularists took the Bible out of the curriculum, as Holmes stated, and control the textbooks printed, and the result is religion is deemphasized in the curriculum. I am sorry you are too boneheaded to admit that. It's not even an arguable point.As far as current lawsuits over textbooks, the secularists have mostly won already, but we did see them suing over the recent ID language. In general, secularists use the law and threats of litigation to slant teaching to benefit the promotion of their beliefs. My point is considering how secularists use the law to slant textbooks, I can hardly see where you are justified complaining about Hindus doing the same.This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 02:08 PM

Rand, you certainly returned from your time away full of vinegar!Insulting your debate opponent's intelligence and integrity violates the forum guidelines, as well as basic notions of civility.Meanwhile, if you have a comment to make about this warning, you know where the appropriate forum is. Take it there.

---

Trust me.

Holmes never stated any such thing. His posts in this thread are Message 140 and Message 148 if you'd like to actually read them. As I said earlier, since I'm willing to correct your incorrect characterizations of what I'm saying as often as you make them, I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by repeating them.As I've explained several times now, and as I just finished explaining to Buz again in Message 146, no one is denying, especially not me, the increasing secularization of our society, including public education.You seem to be having difficulty keeping straight what we're discussing. You asserted that secularists are doing the same thing as the religious groups described in the article of the opening post. These religious groups are bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and school boards for representation of their preferred viewpoints. Do you have any examples of secularists doing the same thing? Of course secularists will go to court to counter the results of bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and schoolboards for representation of religious viewpoints in science class. But do you have any examples of secular groups bypassing scholarship to lobby publishers and schoolboards for representation of their own preferred viewpoints? You keep saying this, but you have yet to provide a single example. The fact of the matter is that what finds its way into textbooks is the prevailing views of scholarship, and that scholarship is increasingly secular. But there are no secular groups out there lobbying publishers and school boards for representation of views that are contrary to prevailing views within scholarship.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 02-07-2006 02:44 PM

You are correct that as far as textbooks are concerned it would be indirect as it hadn't hit textbooks yet. The point is secularists are willing to move through legal channels to hamper and change scholarship, including info that would end up in textbooks.That's why I added the piece questioning if the behavior you are pointing to is an artifact of how schools and their textbooks are put together, rather than the communities engaging in the behavior. Since schools and books are put together by secular sources, those that are likely to want changes will be nonsecular. Damn! I wasn't trying to goad, and I'm not sure if I was hectoring, but I was certainly needling. Meant it humorously but I was definitely needling. Won't happen again.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

But is there any similarity to what these religious groups are doing, which is to ask for is distortions of current scholarly understanding in textbooks for public schools. Are the secular groups you're talking about requesting that science be distorted in technical papers? I doubt that very much.I think what you're talking about is which scientific findings are given the imprimatur of government. I don't know anything about the groups involved in this dispute, but I would have guessed that the side trying to force moralistic sensibilities on scientific findings would have a healthy non-secular, i.e., religious, component.--Percy

Sure. Let's go back to one of my favorite examples. Evolutionists used the courts and media to get evolution accepted into school curriculums (Scopes-Monkey trial for example which was a test case).One of the myths they succeeded into forcing into schools is the myth of the Biogenetic Law. There was no scholarship to support the claim and quite a bit of scholarship that showed there was no such thing, but evo secularists succeeded in subverting good scholarship in getting Haeckel's forgeries into schools with the accompanying myths associated with it.

quote:

---

Evolutionists used the courts and media to get evolution accepted into school curriculums (Scopes-Monkey trial for example which was a test case).

---

Actually, the evolutionists lost that case. They won the appeal of the conviction on a technicality, but neither the case nor the appeal affected the Tennessee law.That may not affect your point, though.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

It's important to make it clear that the Tenn. v Scopes trial involved a teacher charged with a criminal offense for teaching the theory of evolution.If it was a test case, then I guess it was a creationist test case.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

No, the evo side was looking to challenge the law. It is true that the State brought charges, I believe, but it was well-known that the evo side wanted a court case to try the case in the media as much as in the courts.

Once again your example does not support your assertions.The evolutionists did not use that case to get evolution accepted into school curriculums.Teaching Evolution was already in the school curriculums, and the religous conservatives used the Government to have teaching Evolutionary Theories proscribed. Tennesse StatuteThe statute was specifically inserted to prevent teaching evolutionary theory. The teacher was charged with violating the statute. It was not the evolutionists who tried to use the courts to get the subject taught, but the religious conservatives that used the courts and legislature to KEEP the subject from beling taught.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Regardless of how you want to view the Scopes-Monkey trial, both sides were using the courts. The question is whether scholarship was on the side of those pushing the myths Haeckel had created, and most certainly, scholarship was not, but evos were.There was already ample evidence the drawings were forged and that the Biogenetic law was a sham. Evos were not pushing scientific scholarship, but their own philosophy masquerading as science.Are you claiming the Biogenetic Law was legitimate scholarship?If so, why?It was obviously wrong since it's inception and repeatedly denounced and shown to be wrong moreover.

Whaddya mean, "No"?The State brought charges--you can just say, "It is true the State brought charges," Rand (it won't hurt) without adding "I believe" as though it were possible that you are mistaken. It is a fact.The State of Tennessee brought charges against a teacher for teaching a scientific theory. Personally, I would think any right-thinking American would reject that kind of unconstitutional law; nonetheless, the teacher didn't file suit in court. He was indicted.Nobody forced the State to pass a law against a scientific theory, and nobody forced the State to bring charges. Rather, the apparatus of the State was used by religious office-holders to prosecute science they disliked because it challenged their religious beliefs.They won a conviction. They won the appeal.How does this translate to secularists using the courts to force anything on anybody? Your example doesn't hold water.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Sorry, but once again your post is nothing but errant nonsense and willfull ignorance. The religious right wrote the law, and brought the charges and won the case. They tried to impose ignorance on all of the students of Tennessee.The rest of your post is simply more OT nonsense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion