Texas on the front lines in a religious war on history?

[daaron]

www.alternet.org/story/155515/is_texas_waging_war_on_history/ac

Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas State Board of Education from 2007 to 2009, is a “young earth” creationist. He believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that human beings walked with dinosaurs, and that Noah’s Ark had a unique, multi-level construction that allowed it to house every species of animal, including the dinosaurs.

He has a right to his beliefs, but it’s his views on history that are problematic. McLeroy is part of a large and powerful movement determined to impose a thoroughly distorted, ultra-partisan, Christian nationalist version of US history on America’s public school students. And he has scored stunning successes.

If you want to see a scary movie about this movement, consider taking in Scott Thurman’s finely-crafted documentary Revisionaries, currently making the festival circuit, which records the antics of McLeroy and a hard right majority on the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) as they revise the textbook standards that will be used in Texas (and many other states).

[lunasun]

1. would like to see it

http://www.therevisionariesmovie.com/trailer.html

claim their beliefs are in step with average citizen.....goose step maybe!!!!

[HeiressofBickworth]

2. It's playing at SIFF this week.

(Seattle International Film Festival) I considered seeing it, but I also knew that it would blow my blood pressure above advisable limits. My granddaughter is taking US history this semester. I want to take a look at her text book to see how bad it is.

[tanyev]

3. And that's why I often vote in GOP primaries.

Hubby and I helped finally get rid of that asshat.

[daaron]

24. My mom did that until last year.

Very rural spot - with zero Democrats running for any office.

Truly a choice between the lesser of two evils. I feel for ya.

[dmallind]

4. Another example of the enabling religious posters pretend does not exist

Are a majority even in TX young earth creationists? No.

Are a majority even in TX anti-science fundies? No.

But a majority vote for any asshat who is because he says "Christian" a lot and dammit they're Christians too!

And even the minority that didn't vote for him simply recoil in gloating hand-wringing horror at the militancy of atheists when anyone suggests ridiculing this intentionally ignorant destroyer of education for his entirely Christianity-derived and Christianity-motivated harmful lunacy. By protecting him from the abuse and laughing scorn he so richly deserves for his deeply held religious beliefs (lest they start to feel a tad self-conscious about how much their own differ in both degree and especially quality) they add a veneer of respectability to his madness, and serve as willing human shields for his intellectual terrorism hideout of "faith".

[rexcat]

5. It is probably not a majority...

of young earth creationists and anti-science fundies in Texass but my guess is a large plurality in the state. On that note Texass is not as bad as Oklahoma or some of the other former Confederate states but not by much.

[humblebum]

6. Some of us, myself included, have a slightly different take on the situation than you.

Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

'"By protecting him from the abuse and laughing scorn he so richly deserves for his deeply held religious beliefs"

Your attitude is really no different, in many respects, than theirs,only at opposite ends of a religious spectrum of belief. The reason that I criticize much of organized atheism so heavily is because I consider it to be every bit as oppressive, potentially harmful, and as extremist as any group of religious extremists.

[dmallind]

7. Oh do tell me how politically influential atheists are working to make

schoolkids into brain dead morons with no grasp of basic science. Since we're "no different" and all.

Since when is ridicule not warranted for ridiculous ideas? Or do you not consider a 6000 yr old earth ridiculous?

[humblebum]

8. So then it's OK to openly ridicule certain views held by some atheists

that I or others consider to be ridiculous? If ridicule is the only defense you have against POVs that you disagree with can only mean that you cannot adequately mount a defense of your own ideas.

[skepticscott]

10. Ridicule all you want..or try to

But unless you have a lot more in the way of evidence and logical arguments than usual, be prepared to have it shoved back in your face.

Start now..tell us three views held by atheists (and directly related to atheism), that are as ridiculous and at odds with overwhelming evidence as a 6000 year old earth.

[humblebum]

11. Here comes the red herring again.

It seems to me that the argument at hand is about the issue of using ridicule as sound method of debate, not about me ridiculing anyone, or that the earth could be 6000 years old.

Bottom line: I do not nor ever have I claimed objective empirical evidence for the existence of deity. And I dare say that you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Unless of course, you design and define deity according to your own terms, therefore enabling you to disprove the idea that you yourself have created, which is your constant giant red herring argument.

And as far as ideas "that are as ridiculous" - just by what standard do you gauge the degree of how ridiculous something is?

[Goblinmonger]

12. You keep using that phrase.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

[humblebum]

13. Then I would suggest that you explain, because it certainly fits what I see going on,

and since fallacies are being pointed out here by some on a very regular basis, we might as well go with flow.

[dmallind]

15. Why debate with morons? Ridicule is far more "sound"

I would no more worry about debating a young earth creationist than I would worry about debating an adult who believes in Santa. I laugh at both because that's all both people deserve and all both ideas merit. Why do you disagree? What's NOT ridiculous about a 6000 yr old earth? What's worthy of consideration, let alone debate, in the idea?

[skepticscott]

17. Fail on all counts...typical

It seems to me that the argument at hand is about the issue of using ridicule as sound method of debate, not about me ridiculing anyone, or that the earth could be 6000 years old.

Uh, no...the argument at hand concerns claims that are so far out of line with demonstrated fact (and have been shown to be so more times than can be counted, so that a "defense of your own ideas" is ludicrously redundant) that they don't even warrant being "debated" with the evidence available, and whether such claims are unworthy of ridicule. (they are very worthy of it). And you're the one who tried to make the idea of you ridiculing someone part of the argument: "So then it's OK to openly ridicule certain views held by some atheists that I or others consider to be ridiculous?"

Bottom line: I do not nor ever have I claimed objective empirical evidence for the existence of deity. And I dare say that you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary. Unless of course, you design and define deity according to your own terms, therefore enabling you to disprove the idea that you yourself have created, which is your constant giant red herring argument.

No one in this thread claimed you did, so there's your red herring. And BTW, everyone here is on to your dodge of now calling any question you're afraid or unable to answer a "red herring". It ain't working.

And as far as ideas "that are as ridiculous" - just by what standard do you gauge the degree of how ridiculous something is?

Probably in a similar fashion to the way you gauge the degree of how "oppressive", "potentially harmful", and "extremist" something is as compared to something else.

[humblebum]

21. At least I'm glad to see that you realize your habit of red herrings.

As far as gauging something as "oppressive", "potentially harmful", and "extremist" - I use historical fact as a comparison. So if you continue to defend ridicule as a method of debate, then I can only assume that you really cannot adequately debate the issue at hand, but instead you continue to dodge and divert.

[skepticscott]

27. More fail

I recognize YOUR habit of calling everyone else's questions that you can't answer red herrings. Quite a different thing.

And the question was not how to tell whether something is "oppressive", "potentially harmful", "extremist" or "ridiculous". It was (as stated by you in #6, and reiterated by me) how you just whether one thing is as ridiculous or as oppressive as another. Again, quite a different thing, which you no doubt know but simply can't cope with.

I explicitly put ridicule outside the area of "debate". Do you need that explained again too?

School is out. Rounds are over.

[humblebum]

29. Always spinning and avoiding aren't you?

School is out. Rounds are over. Huge fail.

[dmallind]

14. Feel free pally - and if you think ridicule is the ONLY defense against a 6000 yr old earth

I invite you to consider

1) the existence of the basis of all life - carbon
2) the size of the universe
3) radiometric dating
4) sedimentary rocks

just to name a few.

But frankly ridicule - after hearty laughter of course - is the most apposite response to young earthers.

If you can find an atheist making an equally asinine claim, by all means ridicule them. I'd likely join in.

[humblebum]

16. Where was I defending the 6000 year idea? I wasn't nor

do I accept it. And the Bible does not state that either. But that is certainly not the issue. The issue between you and I is the use of ridicule as a method of debate. I do not believe that the universe came about by random chance, nor do I accept a common atheist/secular definition of "nothing" or "nothingness."

Equally asinine? That's a matter of opinion.

[skepticscott]

18. Only the opinion of someone

who considers their "belief" about how the universe came about evidence enough to render other views as ridiculous by comparison as young earth creationism is to evolution.

[skepticscott]

19. The intellectual bankruptcy of that position

has been exposed time and time again on this board. Not surprised you keep trying to peddle it, though.

If Christian fundamentalists really had their way in this country, with no Constitution, no secular courts, and no organizations championing freedom of religion and separation of church and state to get in their way, these are just a few examples of the way things would be:

-Daily religious instruction, prayer and Bible study would be required in all schools.

-Church attendance would be mandatory.

-Only Christians would be allowed to serve in elected office or as judges.

-All laws and all science education would have to conform with the Bible and meet the approval of religious leaders.
-Artificial contraception would be illegal.

-Divorce would be illegal.

-Blasphemy would be illegal.

-Working on the Sabbath would be illegal (except for football players and NASCAR drivers).

-Abortion would be illegal and punishable by death.

-Known homosexuals and atheists would be imprisoned or killed. Homosexual activity would be illegal and punishable by death.

-Extramarital sex would be illegal and punishable by death.

Now tell us what the worst-case scenario would be if “fundamentalist” atheists had their way about everything, and then to tell us which world you’d rather live in.

This is, of course, just a rhetorical challenge, to illustrate the foolishness of your position to anyone new here. A coherent and direct response from you is not (ever) expected, and your usual evasion is beyond tiring, so don't waste your time and ours.

[daaron]

22. It's one thing to defend Christianity from over-generalization.

But it is apparent to any reader that this is a rather defensive reaction to a post about RW fundies. Where in the post did it say atheists were rewriting history? I must have missed that part.

This subthread is a distraction. It's off-topic, and the author appears to be intentionally attempting to incite reaction from other DU users. It seems counter-productive, to say the least, to attempt to turn a perfectly good bitch-session about crazy RW fundies into some sort of victimization back-and-forth. If this bickering continues, I will delete the fucking OP.

[laconicsax]

23. It sure didn't take you long to figure out humblebum's schtick!

[daaron]

25. Thanks, I'm a quick study,

with a short fuse.

[humblebum]

26. "Where in the post did it say atheists were rewriting history?" I give up. Where?nt

[trotsky]

9. Yes, this is a huge problem.

The hand-wringers don't have a solution, and would prefer to just tut-tut those of us who confront such ridiculous beliefs head-on. We're much easier targets, and since everyone wants the atheists to shut up and stay hidden, it's a popular approach. Much easier than confronting a fellow believer, clearly.

Meanwhile the asshat keeps up his religious crusade.

[cbayer]

20. Wow, that's a scary article.

Cynthia Dunbar is a particularly frightening character. Thankfully, it appears that she is no longer on the board (neither is McLeroy). Did Texas voters wise up or did they replace these two with similar people?

Interesting side note. The Texas Board is officially called "Texas Educations Agency" or TEA for short.



I would be most interested in seeing the move.

[tanyev]

28. Here's an article from 2010 post-election.

We not only got rid of McElroy, but another RW freakazoid named Tincy Miller. She's running again this year--will find out May 29th how that goes. Dunbar resigned. The guy who beat McElroy has defined himself as a moderate Republian and ran on a platform of moving away from the social issues.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/state-board-of-education/christian-conservatives-lose-former-sboe-chair/

[cbayer]

30. Sounds like progress. Keep up the good work.

[daaron]

33. Well done, sane Texans! nt

[Rob H.]

31. I'm going to take this opportunity to recommend Katherine Stewart's book again:

As mentioned in Stewart's article, linked in the OP, it's The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Children. I finished reading it not long ago and, in my opinion, it's essential reading for those wishing to learn more about the ultra-conservative Christian Right and its intention to infiltrate and radically change the U.S. educational system. It also goes into detail about their concurrent desire to, if at all possible, destroy the public school system outright and replace it with religious schools. It's chilling, but a great read.

I don't know what the likelihood is of Revisionaries getting a wide release, but I'll keep an eye out for it if it comes to my town. (I'd buy it on DVD right now if it were available.)

[Sirveri]

32. It's only a war if both sides are fighting it. This is more like a slaughter or a pogrom.

Because I'm willing to bet we're just going to lay back and take it again. Because, what can we do. Eventually options will arrive on the table that every man can enjoy, but not yet.