Wham Rocks Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Self-described Christian conservatives on the Texas Board of Education are "rephrasing" health textbooks to reconcile them with their religious social agenda. The wonderful thing about the religious right is that when something contradicts their fragile grip on reality, they want it erased so they can continue their glorious march of proselytization. Here are a few examples of changes either proposed or actually enforced by the Christian conservatives in Texas. *Any reference to "partners" is actually secret code for homosexual partners and must be converted to "husbands and wives". Public schools can't tolerate words in textbooks that suggest partnerships exist outside of holy matrimony... for the children's sake. *Any reference to "marriage" must be defined as "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife". The Christian version of marriage is under attack by evil liberals in Massachussets who actually treat gays like equal citizens... and that sends kids the wrong message. *Anyone who found a playboy around age 11 knows that adolescence brings about a change in attitude about sexuality. However, textbooks are not allowed to say adolescence brings about an "attraction to others" anymore, they must specifically say "attraction to the opposite sex" because clearly, gay youth don't exist. *And to acquiese the needs of creationists, textbooks cannot say the last ice age took place "millions of years ago" because the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old like Genesis stipulates. Duh, everyone knows earth started with a magical tree and a talking snake. Scientists are so stupid for questioning that. The downside is that textbook publishers are unwilling to create two simultaneous editions for sane states versus insane states, so when religious pscyho-babble is injected into textbooks, everyone loses. Why burn the books when you can just rewrite them? WWJD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Solution: private education and/or home schooling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 *And to acquiese the needs of creationists, textbooks cannot say the last ice age took place "millions of years ago" because the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old like Genesis stipulates. Duh, everyone knows earth started with a magical tree and a talking snake. Scientists are so stupid for questioning that.WWJD? 129211[/snapback] I thought you were just being an !@#$ and made that up. Then I read the story. Holy stevestojan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 And I'm sure that when the kids start getting erect penii, "Abstinence only" is going to make them keep their pants on. Or reduce teen pregnancies and the transmission of AIDS and other STDs. F$#k all of the studies to the contrary. They're all wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 And I'm sure that when the kids start getting erect penii, "Abstinence only" is going to make them keep their pants on. Or reduce teen pregnancies and the transmission of AIDS and other STDs. F$#k all of the studies to the contrary. They're all wrong. 129842[/snapback] Everytime I hear that I just laugh. Like any of us did that if we had a choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 OK - pile on... I don't see anything wrong with any of the proposals that you listed except the one about the "age of the earth/world"...however there are ways to word even that and satisfy both sides... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Sure... mock the talking snake. But can you prove that there was no such thing as the talking snake? I thought not. Therefore, it goes in the science book. See how easy that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 It seems our country has swung too far to the left - thus 8 years of Dubya to get things headed in the other direction. Things like this will likely ensure a more Liberal president in the near future as the country realizes how crazy these !@#$ers really are. Taking out "millions of years ago"! Un!@#$ing believable! People still actually believe this stevestojan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 It seems our country has swung too far to the left - thus 8 years of Dubya to get things headed in the other direction. Things like this will likely ensure a more Liberal president in the near future as the country realizes how crazy these !@#$ers really are. Taking out "millions of years ago"! Un!@#$ing believable! People still actually believe this stevestojan! 130044[/snapback] With regret, I disagree. I think there will just be a continuing contest to see who can move the furthest to the right. Politicians see that it works. The next guy will make Bush look like a flaming liberal. You can never wave the flag too much or proclaim your faith in God too much. There is always someone willing to be even more patriotic, even holier than the last guy. I have asked a couple times here how far would be too far to the right and have recieved very few answers. Where is the evidence that there are those on the right that have a line beyond which they will not go? When Bob Jones wrote a letter to the President talking about pagans who hate Christ, where was the reasonable right to tell him to, in Cheney like fashion, go eff yourself? Nothing, nada, zip. Specter, creepy though he is, is what passes for a moderate Republican these days. He was just publicly castrated and I heard not a peep from the reasonable right which apparently was struck dumb, trembling in the shadows and just glad it was happening to someone else. There is no physical law which demands that a swing too far to one side demands an eventual return the other way. This is politics, not a pendulum. Power begets more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Mickey - I really hope you're wrong. Let's hope the MTV generation that they're so scared of grows up rational. These are the people you've aligned yourselves with, Bushies! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 There is no physical law which demands that a swing too far to one side demands an eventual return the other way. This is politics, not a pendulum. Power begets more power. 130130[/snapback] WRONG. There is too, and I can prove it!!! United States: Conservative swing: Warren Harding-Herbert Hoover Liberal swing: FDR-Harry Truman Conservative swing: Dwight Eisenhower Liberal swing: John Kennedy-Lyndon Johnson Conservative swing: Richard Nixon-Jerry Ford Liberal Swing: Jimmy Carter Conservative swing: Ronald Reagan-George Bush I Liberal swing: Bill Clinton Conservative swing: George Bush II-?? Great Britain: Herbert Asquith Liberal 1908–15 Herbert Asquith Coalition 1915–16 David Lloyd George Coalition 1916–22 Andrew Bonar Law Conservative 1922–23 Stanley Baldwin Conservative 1923–24 Ramsay MacDonald Labour 1924 Stanley Baldwin Conservative 1924–29 Ramsay MacDonald Labour 1929–31 Ramsay MacDonald National (Coalition) 1931–35 Stanley Baldwin National 1935–37 Neville Chamberlain National 1937–40 Winston Churchill Coalition 1940–45 Clement Attlee Labour 1945–51 Sir Winston Churchill Conservative 1951–54 Sir Anthony Eden Conservative 1955–57 Harold Macmillan Conservative 1957–63 Sir Alec Douglas-Home Conservative 1963–64 Harold Wilson Labour 1964–70 Edward Heath Conservative 1970–74 Harold Wilson Labour 1974–76 James Callaghan Labour 1976–79 Margaret Thatcher Conservative 1979–90 John Major Conservative 1990–97 Tony Blair Labour 1997– Canada: Sir Wilfred Laurier Liberal 1896-1911 Sir Robert L. Borden Conservative/Unionist 1911-20 Arthur Meighen Conservative 1920-21 W. L. M. King Liberal 1921-26 Arthur Meighen Conservative 1926 W. L. M. King Liberal 1926-30 Richard B. Bennett Conservative 1930-35 W. L. M. King Liberal 1935-48 Louis St. Laurent Liberal 1948-57 John G. Diefenbaker Progressive Conservative 1957-63 Lester B. Pearson Liberal 1963-68 Pierre Elliott Trudeau Liberal 1968-79 Joseph Clark Progressive Conservative 1979-80 Pierre Elliott Trudeau Liberal 1980-84 John Turner Liberal 1984 Brian Mulroney Progressive Conservative 1984-93 Kim Campbell Progressive Conservative 1993 Jean Chrétien Liberal 1993-2003 Paul Martin Liberal 2003- Sorry, history is not on your side. It will swing back eventually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 *Any reference to "partners" is actually secret code for homosexual partners and must be converted to "husbands and wives". Public schools can't tolerate words in textbooks that suggest partnerships exist outside of holy matrimony... for the children's sake. *Any reference to "marriage" must be defined as "a lifelong union between a husband and a wife". The Christian version of marriage is under attack by evil liberals in Massachussets who actually treat gays like equal citizens... and that sends kids the wrong message. *Anyone who found a playboy around age 11 knows that adolescence brings about a change in attitude about sexuality. However, textbooks are not allowed to say adolescence brings about an "attraction to others" anymore, they must specifically say "attraction to the opposite sex" because clearly, gay youth don't exist. 129211[/snapback] Does anybody want to argue the substance of the original post? I already said I had a problem with the one about the "age of the earth/world", so I left it out of the quote above. But, please tell me what is wrong with any of the three proposals above! These are not wacky right wing proposals. They are mainstream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Does anybody want to argue the substance of the original post? I already said I had a problem with the one about the "age of the earth/world", so I left it out of the quote above. But, please tell me what is wrong with any of the three proposals above! These are not wacky right wing proposals. They are mainstream! 130278[/snapback] Mainstream? Possibly, if the mainstream runs through the middle of the right. What happened to diversity? When did this country become the "Land of the free to impose a single set of values on everyone whether they fit or not." How does a marriage, union, or whatever you want to call it between two people you don't even know affect your marriage? Does an idea that doesn't exactly coincide with your worldview somehow threaten it? Do the millions of straight couples who don't feel they need the church's approval to validate their private relationship somehow threaten the millions who do? And who gave the religious right the authority to make those decisions for all of the population, including people who don't believe the same way they do? Look, I'm not denigrating your views in any way, shape, or form. They're yours and they work fine for you. If you're happy with them that's fine with me. I just don't believe that a single set of views is necessarily correct for everyone. I have my own viewpoints and they work for me. Neither set is necessarily inferior to the other, so why shouldn't both be accepted as valid? Unless of course you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and that's my doubt, not your doubt) that your viewpoint is the absolutely 100% correct one, for everyone. And I firmly believe that restricting the teaching of alternate viewpoints (on any and every subject) is a huge mistake. Take that statement as broadly as you like. Informed choices are always better than uninformed choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Does anybody want to argue the substance of the original post? I already said I had a problem with the one about the "age of the earth/world", so I left it out of the quote above. But, please tell me what is wrong with any of the three proposals above! These are not wacky right wing proposals. They are mainstream! 130278[/snapback] OK...I'll bite. When referencing "partners," why is this considered code for homosexuals? I live in a home with my girlfriend. We share expenses, we plan budgets, not to mention our lives together. Are we not partners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 OK...I'll bite. When referencing "partners," why is this considered code for homosexuals? I live in a home with my girlfriend. We share expenses, we plan budgets, not to mention our lives together. Are we not partners? 130763[/snapback] No, you're just living in sin. Cavorting together under the same roof while not married! Heathen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The Children! Won't somebody please think of the children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Mainstream? Possibly, if the mainstream runs through the middle of the right. What happened to diversity? When did this country become the "Land of the free to impose a single set of values on everyone whether they fit or not." How does a marriage, union, or whatever you want to call it between two people you don't even know affect your marriage? Does an idea that doesn't exactly coincide with your worldview somehow threaten it? Do the millions of straight couples who don't feel they need the church's approval to validate their private relationship somehow threaten the millions who do? And who gave the religious right the authority to make those decisions for all of the population, including people who don't believe the same way they do? Look, I'm not denigrating your views in any way, shape, or form. They're yours and they work fine for you. If you're happy with them that's fine with me. I just don't believe that a single set of views is necessarily correct for everyone. I have my own viewpoints and they work for me. Neither set is necessarily inferior to the other, so why shouldn't both be accepted as valid? Unless of course you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (and that's my doubt, not your doubt) that your viewpoint is the absolutely 100% correct one, for everyone. And I firmly believe that restricting the teaching of alternate viewpoints (on any and every subject) is a huge mistake. Take that statement as broadly as you like. Informed choices are always better than uninformed choices. 130626[/snapback] Hey, right on RI! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wham Rocks Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 OK...I'll bite. When referencing "partners," why is this considered code for homosexuals? I live in a home with my girlfriend. We share expenses, we plan budgets, not to mention our lives together. Are we not partners? 130763[/snapback] For God's sake, please think about the poor children! Every single kid that looks in your cold, hollow, sinful eyes learns that sinning is cool when clearly living with your girlfriend makes you evil. Bad Kevbeau! Quickly, go here and be redeemed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 The Children! Won't somebody please think of the children! 130800[/snapback] I am glad someone was there for that precious little infant in Plano? Oh... Wait, that was a hetero relationship. Good thing that was a "normal" relationship. Don't worry the "father" is taking over the other kids. Not blaming it on any one set of values... Don't get me wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Quickly, go here and be redeemed. 130806[/snapback] "Cruise With Dr. Jerry Falwell" There's just something really wrong with this subhead.... Tho, not entirely out of character with his type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 "Cruise With Dr. Jerry Falwell" There's just something really wrong with this subhead.... Tho, not entirely out of character with his type. 130814[/snapback] Hmmm... In this case might values = $$$$$$? Oh... It's Jerry Fallwell! My Bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 For God's sake, please think about the poor children! Every single kid that looks in your cold, hollow, sinful eyes learns that sinning is cool when clearly living with your girlfriend makes you evil. Bad Kevbeau! Quickly, go here and be redeemed. 130806[/snapback] Gets rid of the "Redeemers" that hit my door every weekend. They're either selling salvation or gutter guards. "Oh, is you're wife home?" "No, but my girlfriend is....wanna see my horns and spiked tail?" Maybe I'll try "lifepartner" next time to see what reaction I get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 With regret, I disagree. I think there will just be a continuing contest to see who can move the furthest to the right. Politicians see that it works. The next guy will make Bush look like a flaming liberal. You can never wave the flag too much or proclaim your faith in God too much. There is always someone willing to be even more patriotic, even holier than the last guy. I have asked a couple times here how far would be too far to the right and have recieved very few answers. Where is the evidence that there are those on the right that have a line beyond which they will not go? When Bob Jones wrote a letter to the President talking about pagans who hate Christ, where was the reasonable right to tell him to, in Cheney like fashion, go eff yourself? Nothing, nada, zip. Specter, creepy though he is, is what passes for a moderate Republican these days. He was just publicly castrated and I heard not a peep from the reasonable right which apparently was struck dumb, trembling in the shadows and just glad it was happening to someone else. There is no physical law which demands that a swing too far to one side demands an eventual return the other way. This is politics, not a pendulum. Power begets more power. 130130[/snapback] Micky, if your party full of speech and rights depriving, tree hugging leftists could offer a reasonable candidate, we would not be ihaving this conversation, right? Your gal Hillary recently described herself as practicing her religion in an "evangelical way." This will probably be the next piece of trash that your broken down party hauls out in front of the American electorate. Think she will win? Q: Senator Kerry, are you for or against gay marriage? Ans: Yes. C'mon my friend. Do you think that you can win with losers like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 OK...I'll bite. When referencing "partners," why is this considered code for homosexuals? I live in a home with my girlfriend. We share expenses, we plan budgets, not to mention our lives together. Are we not partners? 130763[/snapback] Try getting her on your health insurance. Not partners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Self-described Christian conservatives on the Texas Board of Education are "rephrasing" health textbooks to reconcile them with their religious social agenda. .............. *Any reference to "partners" is actually secret code for homosexual partners and must be converted to "husbands and wives". Public schools can't tolerate words in textbooks that suggest partnerships exist outside of holy matrimony... for the children's sake. ........................ WWJD? 129211[/snapback] Man, this is really going to screw up the IRS - no more partnerships? It's those Godless corporations that are killing everything good in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Try getting her on your health insurance. Not partners. 131214[/snapback] I know, but with my company if she was a man I could. Never really looked into it, but I wonder what the criteria is to get a same sex partner on your health insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts