Read More »

I don't know how I professionally feel about it yet. It doesn't DIRECTLY affect what I teach - 1 + 1 will always be 2. And yet - at the same time, it does affect my students and the views they will have when they walk into my classroom. I do not like the fact that a single School Board in a state that far away from mine - both geographically and philosophically - gets to decide how my students learn, what they learn, how they learn it. I don't like that this School Board is attempting to alter the history of its own country. They say they are "adding balance" and that they are "correcting" things, but I'm not so sure about that. I suppose I would have to see a complete list of the changes, but for the most part - I completely disagree with what the article presents as the purpose - and content - of these changes.

Let's see. This was in the opening paragraph.
They want to "stress the superiority of American capitalism".
Now, I love my country, I do. But the superiority of our economic system? I'm not sure I'd go that far. Especially when, later, they decide to term capitalism as "free-enterprise system" because capitalism has negative connotations. The words "capitalist pig" were brought up. Yet, in the same breath, they want to teach that McCarthyism had its place because "the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." What are we saying here? Negative connotations of our economic system is bad? Saying McCarthy's witch hunt as justified because he was right? Um, what? WHAT? Someone explain to me, please. I really don't understand at all. Being seen as "capitalist pigs" is part of our history. We shouldn't shy away from that. We should just try to *NOT* be that. Just because there were Soviet Communications to people in the United States does not mean that Joseph McCarthy had a right to do what he did. And in the way he did it. The history surrounding him should not be changed to make it seem like he was on some righteous crusade. Perhaps his intentions may have been good, but his actions are not exactly viewed as the way things should have been handled.

This was also in the opening paragraph.
They are "questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government."
I cannot believe that everything I was ever taught about what our Founding Fathers intended for our government was wrong. The United States has never had a national religion. Ever. Yes, there are a lot of Christians in this nation. Yes, our Founding Fathers were most likely Christian. (I don't recall right now, but the likelihood is strong.) Yet, they didn't write in a national religion. I can hardly believe that was because they just assumed only Christians would show up here. They didn't institute a specific Christian sect, either. Not Episcopalian, not Roman Catholicism, none of that. How can it be said that it was *not* intended for Church and State to be separate? There aren't FOUR branches to our government. "Church" is not a branch of our government. It is *not* part of checks and balances in the government. I suppose it could be argued that it is a "shadow" branch in that it is expected religion would instill good values into those who would become our leaders, that God would guide them in their path. And yet - I don't know that it is RELIGION that instills those good values. It may be that religion gives a good guideline to follow, for those that believe, but it is the PARENT who teaches the child good values. Religion can be a double edged sword when it comes to the any type of values someone can follow. You get the ones who follow societal norms, the ones who are good people. And yet - there is the other side of the coin. The ones who do not follow that moral code which religion is said to teach. That killing is wrong. That one should not lie. That one should help their fellow man. They do things the complete opposite - yet in the name of religion, or in the name of keeping that religion safe. So, it's not RELIGION that teaches a child. It's the parents. So I don't want to hear that Church is a "shadow branch" of our government, because it's not. The character of a person (in general) is based on the example they see, what they are taught.

Just as an afterthought for those of you who do not know - I was raised Roman Catholic. I do believe in something beyond myself. My mom and dad took me to Mass every week. There are many things the Catholic Church and I have disagreements about.
Abortion is a woman's choice, yes, though it should not be treated as birth control. But that's a personal view. Abortion is a very weighty decision and I would hate to see someone who could easily enter into that decision several times in a short span of time. Yet, there sometimes is really no choice - and I understand that.
Gay marriage - God made them the way they are. Let them be happy. Let them have the right to connect themselves to another person. I hardly consider that "sullying" or "dirtying" the institution of marriage. They love each other. So what if it's man and man or woman and woman? Two souls connected as one. Isn't that what marriage is about?

Anyway. This has gone beyond what I had intended. I'm sorry. A glimpse into my weirdo mind.


« Hide Post