Texas school board votes to remove Clinton, Keller, Hobbes from history curriculum; adds Moses

The first chrisitanity was jewish christianity. Jews who believed he was the messiah and still kept a lot of their old 613 laws or various parts and stuck to same ideology. That lasted maybe 300 years tops if memory serves me right. It lost to what became syriaic and coptic christianity and then later the Catholic church. When the Romans stopped persecuting christians in 324 it changed a lot after that. Not to mention as time went on they wanted to fuether separate their religion from Judaism and started to literay make shit up and come up with new weird rulings. For example many from apostiñe times and the prophets like paul in NT spoke about keeping the old laws and jesús is is quoted as such to keep old laws etc. Later christians didnt like this because logically Jewish messianic christianity is not real judaism for a million reasons and is also too hard for many christians to follow. It isnt an opium of the masses and it to similar to where it came from judaism. Then christianity had split and various beliefs on divinity of jesus and what won out was trinity believers. Oh anf then the religion changed more.

I do agree though. Catholicism has made up most of its stuff and used religious leaxwrs and orders to create to their liking. Often drawing on old testament when it is convinent. But as ideology catholicism is a lot better in hierarchy and order sense. I dont respect protestants at all but barely respect catholic thought but see catholicism and eastern orthordoxy as closer to original christianity. And they are. The historic dislile of protestants to hate catholics is because if they accept catholics as real christians it defeats their even more foolish and warped version of the religion. The catholics stand on more written history, order and customs and closer to its original conception as it ev9lvrd for ots first hundreda of years as compared to main stream protestant sects.

Evangelicalism growing population is last i checked the only growing sect really of protestants and its tied to their appocalyptic and end times stuff which influences the minds of many who just want ot to all end and be saved.

But if you ask me what will prevail in the long term it is catholicism.

Confusing that you hold catholicism in higher regard when you state they've made up parts of their dogma, but have disdain for protestants when they claim scripture only.

That's like saying you respect the Jets more than the Jags because they're an older team.
 
Last edited:
Straight up nonsense, imo. Hobbes created the concept of the Social Contract and limited the power of the Sovereign (the king at that point) through parliamentary democracy. I don't agree with Hobbes on many things, but his contributions to political theory are substantial. Texas gonna Texas.

Hobbes favored a monarchy.
 
Texas should just swap the curriculum on Hillary Clinton with Betty Ford. Ford was a pro-life conservative, true feminist, and her foundation has actually saved lives. (Lobbying vs Addiction Treatment)
 
Last edited:
While Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee from a major party, and Helen Keller were appraised to lack the requisite contributions to American history, "Judeo-Christian values" made the cut, and the biblical figure Moses has replaced Thomas Hobbes in the section on "individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding."

In other news, Texas history books will now document the 2016 presidential election as being a glorious victory of Christlike god-man Donald Trump over a swarm of pagan locusts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-...move-hillary-clinton-from-history-curriculum/

484751_10151675573057791_201277932_n.jpg

what "curriculum" is this talking about? history? math?

not surprising, though. history textbooks are F'ing silly in the USA, because they pander to the largest market.....texas.
 
Lol...

Texas gonna Texas...

Not surprising since their history books glosses over slavery history and defines slaves as workers. This article was written in 2015...

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/...book-refers-to-african-slaves-as-workers.html

So yeah anybody that was educated in Texas at a young age probably has comparably shit education IMO...

Yeah blacks there probably have less victim mentallity growing up and are less likely to be slug leaching welfare recipients like in the great state of Illinois
 
Ahhhhh I get it. Revising history is only ok when it’s done to suit the leftist narrative.

Only liberal and leftists should be able to re write history.

Or you know, nobody could re-write history and we could work together to avoid the same problems in the future....nah, let’s knock down statues and omit people from history books.


Damn, you got real lazy with this. You can do better.
 
Imo the internet is not and should not be a replacement for text books, unless textbooks get so bad that their garbage and nonsense outdoes the turbulent fuckery of crowdsourced encyclopedias and politically biased blogs.

And now we play the waiting game.
That sounds like a family guy reference, but I digress.

I don't think it's going to take long to reach parity. Literally no fucks are being given by the people in charge of making these decisions. It's clear they are not vested in the best interests of the people who will use the textbooks. When that takes a back seat to every other consideration, you get Moses in American History books. I think the situation is rather dire and it doesn't look good for the young'uns in the US.

They are so entrenched it may take the Internet to improve this situation. If some rich mofo came along and commissioned a full suite of vetted textbooks for K-12 and put them online for free, no one would have to give a fuck what Texas thinks.
 
Imo the internet is not and should not be a replacement for text books, unless textbooks get so bad that their garbage and nonsense outdoes the turbulent fuckery of crowdsourced encyclopedias and politically biased blogs.

And now we play the waiting game.
There will be extreme vetting for the blogs, believe me.
 
I just knew some righties will try to justify keeping the Confederate statues because of this case.
As @Kafir-kun says , it is categorically NOT the same. Because no liberal is trying to excise Confederate history from books. Do you understand the difference between lionizing historical figures with statues and revising History books to exclude history one doesn't like. There aren't any statues of Goebells or Hitler in Germany (in public) but both men are well covered in their history books.

Why didn't any rightwinger have an issue with US troops pulling down Saddam's statue?
Would any rightwinger have an issue with Muslim Americans putting up a statue of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi or Osama Bin Laden ?
I already pointed out the false equivalency he's pushing; didn't slow him down a bit. I would just give it up.
 
Yeah blacks there probably have less victim mentallity growing up and are less likely to be slug leaching welfare recipients like in the great state of Illinois

What does that have to do with calling 19th century slaves 'workers' and downplaying the effects of slavery?
 
what "curriculum" is this talking about? history? math?

not surprising, though. history textbooks are F'ing silly in the USA, because they pander to the largest market.....texas.

Cali is the largest market, but hardly anyone on the east coast knows who Harvey Milk is. Just sayin...
 
I'm not sure why Hillary would be included unless there's also a section on Farraro and Woodhull.
Maybe a section on Condoleezza Rice should be added as well???

Honestly, Hobbes is the only thing to complain about, but there are hundreds of philosophers that influnced our founders that aren't mentioned in text books.
Ehh, Hillary is fairly considered a minor historical figure. I don't think the history books should have much good to say about her but she should probably be discussed in the realm of modern American political history.

Hobbes is considered a titan of philosophy, I don't necessarily agree with his specific inclusion but it doesn't really strike me as crazy either.
 
While Hillary Clinton, the first female nominee from a major party, and Helen Keller were appraised to lack the requisite contributions to American history, "Judeo-Christian values" made the cut, and the biblical figure Moses has replaced Thomas Hobbes in the section on "individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding."

In other news, Texas history books will now document the 2016 presidential election as being a glorious victory of Christlike god-man Donald Trump over a swarm of pagan locusts.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-...move-hillary-clinton-from-history-curriculum/

484751_10151675573057791_201277932_n.jpg

{<jordan}
 
Like they say, dont mess with Texas.


Its not nice to pick on retards.
 
It makes my day to know that heathens like Darwin and Hobbes are buried at the St. John The Baptist Churchyard, and Collegiate Church of St. Peter.
ymvfa.jpg
 
Moses is a top 5 most significant man in world history. It's about time we put some respect on his name.

That's a very Abrahamic-centric view. I seriously doubt most people in East Asia and South Asia think so. And the Native Americans wouldn't have cared either if Christianity wasn't forced on them. Heck I doubt very much that even Christians would claim Moses in the top 5, evangelical Christians sure, but not everyday Christians.
 
Back
Top