14 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Oh Texas.... I managed to break free of you and yet you still manage to piss me off. I wish I could quit youuu!

Anyways, apparently Texas Republicans now oppose teaching kids critical thinking in schools because it undermines the students' fixed beliefs and parental authority.... Wished I was making this up. Now I've ranted many times before about how Texas Republicans don't give a crap about education and what not and how they'd be more than happy to have a majority of Texans grow up stupid so long as they consistently voted Republican, you know the party that's supposedly best friends with Jesus and all that BS. Well, it's like they're not even trying to pretend that's not the case.

First heard about this from the Amazing Atheist on Youtube, but he's pretty crude and some might not find him trustworthy for some dumb reason so here's an article I found that's one of many you can find on Google. And here's the actual 2012 platform. It's a pdf and the part the article quotes is on page 20 of the file.

Now they're saying they regret including the opposition in their platform. That it was a mistake. Seems to me that someone forgot to think a little more critically when they were drafting out their platform. Oh wait!

Mistake or not, it's part of their platform until 2012. Personally, this just shows what I've been saying all along. That Texas Republicans could care less about education. What I hope is that people wise up and see these bastards for what they really are and stop voting these imbeciles into office, starting with that tool Rick Perry. Texas is already the laughing stock as far as education goes, as well as in other areas. And their Republican Party is the reason why.

The only thing worse than Texas Republicans are the Texas Democrats who do nothing to actively oppose them. Let's hope this turns out to be a huge wake up call for Texas Democrats and Texas voters at large. If not, then Texas needs to go ahead and fucking secede. Just give me my mom and sister first though.

[J-Roc]

Considering the way Texas has voted historically I think this says more bad things about the state then the political party.

[SOAP]

It says bad things about both parties because Democrats don't really do much to oppose this crap in Texas.

That said, even though I have not met every Texan in the state, having lived there a majority of my life, I find it hard to believe most Texans would support some of the atrocities in the Texas GOP Platform. My only conclusion is that most Texans are either not paying attention when they vote or just aren't voting.

Which is why critical thinking in schools, more than ever, should be protected. Not being under scrutiny of the voting public is what allowed the Texas GOP to get to this point. If Texans continue to vote Republican after this, I'll officially wash my hands of the state seeing as they're beyond help if no one stands against this kind of stupidity. It would be a real tragedy. Especially since my mom and sister still live there.

Edited by SOAP, 30 June 2012 - 05:53 AM.

[Egann]

I'm not quite sold on it being a bad thing so much as the Texas Republican Party is horrible at writing clear platforms on what they think and why.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging
the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

Translation: We oppose teaching students standardized tests, particularly with loaded questions designed to change their beliefs away from that of their parents. It took me quite a bit of googling and reading Wikipedia articles to actually understand the language of the platform because it *is* poorly written, but basically the platform is to dispense with teaching to form an opinion and replace it with teaching skills and facts. Schools should not try to influence the opinions of students; that's for families to do.

Of course the facts will include things like "evolution is a theory" because this is Texas, but at its core this platform is trying to be in line with the PISA grading criteria. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/

Even more to the point, this isn't even the correct wording.

However, the final wording of this item was evidently a 'mistake' according to Republican Party of Texas Communications Director Chris Elam who said, in an interview with talkingpointsmemo.com, that the plank should not have included the phrase 'critical thinking skills' and it was not the intent of the subcommittee to indicate that the RPT was opposed to critical thinking skills". When asked to clarify the meaning of the item he said, "I think the intent is that the Republican Party is opposed to the values clarification method that serves the purpose of challenging students beliefs and undermine parental authority"

(Wiki article on Higher Order Thinking Skills)


If the American public school system were one of the best education systems around I'd be against changing something rather important like critical thinking skills, but it's not. It's one of the worst.

[SOAP]

Yes, I mentioned in my first post that they later said it was a mistake. I don't buy it though. Not within the context of everything else on their platform which seems to designed to foster a society of people who follow them unquestioningly or to undermine those who'd disagree with them. Oh they're for critical thinking, but only when it's to challenge beliefs THEY disagree with.

Also in their platform:

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

This could potentially support the killing or harming of homosexuals on religious grounds. That might sound I'm exaggerating but what else could a person do to oppose homosexuality that would incur criminal charges. You can't throw someone in jail for disagreeing with someone. Sounds like a freepass to commit murder to me. I don't see any other way to interpret this.

[Sir Deimos]

... separation of church and state is a lovely idea. I wonder if it'll ever get practiced? Sounds like you got the hell out of there in the nick of time, Soap.

[Egann]

What do you expect? Texas has written in its state constitution and in the agreement it had with the US Government when it became a state that it has the sovereign power to divide itself into five states and have ten senators. Like I said, some of the "facts" will be more than a little iffy, but I'm not sold on this particular plank being held out of malice.

[Sir Deimos]

The intent may not be malicious, but it certainly is ignorant. And ignorance/intolerance at this level can cost people lives. Talk all you want about poorly worded laws, or we may be misunderstanding their meaning, but the average American, especially in Texas, isn't going to do the research you've done. There will be confusion. And innocent people may get seriously hurt.

There is NO excuse. The strict definition of what they're trying to accomplish may be vague PURPOSELY. And if it isn't, why not just plain word it better? I refuse to believe elected officials lack the intelligence to clarify their own ridiculous policies.

[SOAP]

... separation of church and state is a lovely idea. I wonder if it'll ever get practiced? Sounds like you got the hell out of there in the nick of time, Soap.

Yeah but I still have family there, most of them liberal and except Austin and maybe Houston, Texas is not a fun place for liberals, and may become worse. Though they assure me most of the platform is just a bunch of BS to get votes from the religious crowd and none of it is going to become actual laws or anything. But.... from experience with Texas Republicans like Rick Perry, they usually say what they mean and mean what they say, no matter how ignorant it may be, and will do anything get their way, even if it means stepping on the rights of anyone who will get in their way. It's no use making excuses for people like that. They must be exposed for their ignorance to the public and removed from office as soon as possible.

[Egann]

There is NO excuse. The strict definition of what they're trying to accomplish may be vague PURPOSELY. And if it isn't, why not just plain word it better? I refuse to believe elected officials lack the intelligence to clarify their own ridiculous policies.

Remember that in American politics the republican and democrat parties are basically two competing mafias. It's not about what people want, but what's good for the party. Just about all American voters wanted Congress to pass budgets over the past three years (and not all of this is Obama's fault; he proposed a budget to the Senate which was voted down 97-0. Probably not helping...) Why didn't Congress pass a budget? I am practically certain that the spending has been insane, and the Democrat party knows that the American people will be LIVID when they see the numbers...so the Democrat party plans to pass the budget in the Lame Duck session (regardless of the election's results) and give the American people two years to cool down before the next election. It's the party's best interest; the politicians would've passed the budget long ago to avoid attracting ire from their constituents.

The Republican party is no different, either. Fiscal reform of one manner or another is an almost universal Republican platform plank. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has been the only Republican in modern history to take this plank seriously. A lot of Republican planks are like that. Explains the above mess even better, no?

Back on topic, though, the wording of that homosexuality plank vexes me. I'm guessing it means protection from hate-crime charges on top of civil charges, but it's worded so aggressively...it reminds me a lot of KKK or Nazi hate speech. I'm sure that if it were interpreted as a free pass to commit crimes against homosexuals the law would be challenged and wouldn't even stand the first round of Federal courts, but reversing it by a court ruling would probably make the situation worse.There's no good response beside getting out of Dodge, keeping an eye on the situation, and praying it cools down.

Edited by Egann, 30 June 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[SOAP]

Well at least you admit that the Republican party are only a bunch of thugs that don't have the American peoples' best interest at heart. Maybe the Democrats aren't any different. I've haven't been too pleased with them either. At least with the Dems, the pretend to care even if they don't always do. With theTexas GOP, it's like they don't even try. At worse them come as aggressive sociopaths who have no concept of humanity or reality in general outside their own bubble where Jesus is a money-loving, Tax-hating capitalist and women, gays, liberals, and the poor are the devil, OR at best they're just trying way too hard to pander to the lowest common denominator voter while doing everything in their power to make life a living hell for anyone who isn't a religious nutjob. And that's not a jab at religious people in general, that's a jab at those who really are ignorant enough to think killing gays is okay and treat women like property.

Worded aggressively is an understatement. It simply states any criminal charges. If they meant additional charges to existing charges like normal manslaughter, ect. then that's one hell of screw up. Worse than the one about Critical Thinking. It makes me wish you're right about Republicans simply not wording things correctly but even if that's true, if they can't even assemble a decent platform that doesn't like something from the Onion, then how are they fit to run in congress?

Getting out of dodge and keeping an eye on the situation is exactly what I'm doing. If there is a God, I hope not the one these assholes claim to pray to.

[arunma]

OK, let's see what we've got here...

College tuition: Can't argue there. US taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize the education of US citizens. It's bad enough that we use US tax dollars to fund the science education of foreign grad students (remember, grad school in sciences is free and actually pays), but I've yet to see a good argument as to why we should actively pay for the undertgraduate education of large numbers of non-citizens.

Controversial theories: I wouldn't argue with this if they really were referring to theories that scientists consider controversial. This is an obvious ploy to teach Christian creationism in schools, so that's totally a bad idea. Unless of course these guys are really willing to debate the merits of creationism and change their minds when proven wrong.

Early childhood development: This whole idea of letting parents raise their kids in a vacuum sounds good in theory, but if we argue reductio ad absurdum that means we also let the immunization opponents kill their kids Obviously the Republican apologist would say that parents should be allowed to raise their kids freely unless they are causing harm to them. But who defines "harm?" Aha, now we see why the state must necessarily have some hand in raising kids. It always has, and it always will. We can have debates about the degree to which the state has its say. But don't go around saying that parents have absolute free reign in child rearing, because that's just plain impractical.

And now, the good stuff.

If they had concluded with the OBE comment, I could go with this and agree with what Egann is saying. OK, so they are against standardized tests; I don't agree with that philosophy, but it might have some merit. However, they're going with this whole behavior modification thing and challenge of fixed beliefs. Regarding behavior modification, see my comment on early childhood development. To some extent the state has to impose societal values on children. After all, Republicans would never claim to be moral relativists, and if you believe that there is some sort of objective morality then it's reasonable to teach it in schools. At least at a basic level, e.g. insurrection against the state is bad, follow the law, cast your vote, participate in democracy, etc.

(Interlude: I know this is a strawman, but Democrats have precisely the same problem with school prayer. It's parents' job to teach religion, so don't impose your religion on others' kids, right? Just a helpful thought if you want to see the other point of view.)

As for challenging students' fixed beliefs, this is a dicey one. What if your parents believe the earth is flat? Seriously, there's a handful of people who believe that in America. I've even met one. Do you want schools to not challenge students on this belief? The fact is that without some sort of group socialization, children would end up maladjusted to living in this country. And if you really want to screw your kid over for life, that is your right, since you can homeschool them or send them to some whacky private school which teaches that Magellian was the devil. But part of the job of school is basic socialization, and you can't send your kids to school and then refuse to let the school do its job. Education makes you think for yourself. To some extent it does shake parental authority. I wouldn't go so far as to say it "undermines" it. But education most certainly does teach you that your parents aren't God and that they aren't correct in literally everything they teach. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they disagree with that?

[Reflectionist]

Unless of course these guys are really willing to debate the merits of creationism and change their minds when proven wrong.

Wait, what? I lol'd.

Edited by Reflectionist, 26 July 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[J-Roc]

Yeah I kinda lol'd too arunma, your solution for dealing with idiots is to RATIONALIZE with them?

Are you new at this?

[arunma]

Heh, I meant it rhetorically. Obviously no one who believes in creationism is willing to change his mind. The fact that these guys don't approach the Biblical creation account as falsifiable (i.e. there's nothing which, in theory, could prove it wrong) demonstrates that it's not true. And as you say, it makes it hard to rationalize with them.