SW Missouri District bans 2 books, including Slaughterhouse5

Jason P wrote:

So unless someone's view on marriage is exactly the same as your view, they are insane?

Where did I say that?

He's nuts for many reasons.

The marriage thing just makes him a bit of a hypocrite.

Jason P wrote:

... California is adding GLTB history to their curriculum because the majority are OK with it.

Both districts are censoring as they see fit (the Pledge is a better example on the left) and the majority of constituents are OK with what is happening

Wait... How is adding a section on gay history to social studies class "censoring?"

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Well it doesn't look like the federal government is doing much to stop these books from being banned, so what does the department of education do that isn't already done?

You want the federal government to go to each individual school board and tell them what books to put in the library?

I thought you were for states rights.

I am. It was in a response to you and Go Beavers talking in a sarcastic manner about states and local governments being in charge of education like it is a bad thing. the response was more to Go Beavers than to you, you of course just called Ron Paul "batshit crazy".

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Jason P wrote:

... California is adding GLTB history to their curriculum because the majority are OK with it.

Both districts are censoring as they see fit (the Pledge is a better example on the left) and the majority of constituents are OK with what is happening

Wait... How is adding a section on gay history to social studies class "censoring?"

When you add, you must remove something, no?

To me I see it as a school district determining their curriculum. Now, removing the books from the library is wrong to me, but removing it from the curriculum being taught? That is always going to be debatable as that is just everyone's opinion. And the school is responsible for teaching the kids, but also doing so FOR the communities they serve. It's a fine line between serving your community and "censoring" some topics though.

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I think Ron should answer that since he thinks the DOE is indoctrinating kids.

That wasn't an answer to my question. He said what he thinks the education system is doing, but my question to you was what does the department of Education do that isn't already done? I will even add to that, what does it do that isn't or cannot be done by the states?
.

Here's a link to the DOE page:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg2.html#howdoes

The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.

I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...

Jason P wrote:

Religious leaders have a lot of power because a majority of Americans are religious. It's been this way since the 1700's. The "extreme" label is slapped on when a small minority start suing and protesting an ideology that the majority is OK with.

Like, what is the purpose of atheist groups renting billboards and slapping ads on buses to let everyone know God doesn't exist? What the heck is the point? I get that people don't believe in God, but why wave a flag in everyone's face proclaiming it? It's not like someone who has been going to church all their life is going to have a major revelation just because of a billboard. It just pisses people off. Someone speaks up that they shouldn't have the billboards because it offends them and they are labeled an extremist by the guys paying for the ad.

It's not extremism. It's business as usual.

i slap the extreme label when religious zealots want to impose their ideologies on the mass public ... and when god is used to serve an agenda ...

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

When you add, you must remove something, no?

Do you know what "censoring" means?

To me I see it as a school district determining their curriculum.

Nobody is saying they should be forced to include Slaughterhouse 5 in lessons. I read that when I was 13 but I doubt most of my school mates would have made it through that. Nor would I want it taught. But removing it because it's not Christian enough is wrong and un-American.

Please. No need to try to talk down to people.

Wait a minute, the issue was brought up by someone who claimed those things you say, but was the decision based on that? I mean, the school board looked into the issue because of the claim, but they could have simply made the decision they did because they didn't believe the books were appropriate for any number of reasons, not just because of religion. Unless I'm reading it wrong.

BinauralJam wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Like, what is the purpose of atheist groups renting billboards and slapping ads on buses to let everyone know God doesn't exist? What the heck is the point? I get that people don't believe in God, but why wave a flag in everyone's face proclaiming it? It's not like someone who has been going to church all their life is going to have a major revelation just because of a billboard. It just pisses people off. Someone speaks up that they shouldn't have the billboards because it offends them and they are labeled an extremist by the guys paying for the ad.

It's not extremism. It's business as usual.

On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:

Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.

not really, call me when extreme atheists start wars in the name of no religion.

and this isn't censorship - it's changing the curriculum. and not every book is appropriate for every age group so choice have to be made. just because you disagree that a book might be or not be age appropriate doesn't make it censorship.

Go Beavers wrote:

It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.

Room & board, along with tuition has doubled at the public school I graduated from in 2000. In ten short years the overall cost of tuition and room & board went from $9,000 to $20,000. I couldn't believe it when a guy I work with told me how much it was costing him! If it cost that much when I was attending, I'd probably be a pipe fitter or working at the sawmill right now.

You would be nuts to have more then two kids nowadays.