Texas Board of Education Rewrites Our Textbooks

[enfp can be shy]

Societies can be (even more) technologically progressive without being 'expansive'. Predecessors' social views may be honored, without giving them unnecessary authority.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

Actually, I am one of

 

[VH]

Ah, but the reason you support the principles of the founding fathers is not because you're just blindly following them out of a misplaced sense of tradition or something similar, but because you've taken the time to consider those principles, weighed them up against the alternatives, and decided that they are the best way to structure the political landscape of the nation. So in that respect you're aren't the kind of person I was referring to in my post.

You have an amazing Te for an INFP. I love the way you think.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I was pleasantly surprised, actually, to hear that the board intends to include references to the Declaration's "laws of nature and of nature's god" within the textbooks. In fact, I think any authentic and truthful review of the founding of America ought to include a review of our country's political philosophy. Trying to understand the American republic without knowing anything about its intended purpose is like trying to teach students about physics while ignoring the field's basic underlying laws.

Ok this I can respect. So long as it is taught that this was the original philosphy that the country was founded upon (cause, well, this was indeed a driving factor with the way the country was set up until the 1800's or so).

Nevertheless, times have changed though and this is no longer the case. There are multiple relgious and non religious opinions in this country now, and they all need to be accounted for. Since in a public place not all of them can be addressed, we need to keep religion seperate from such things.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

You have an amazing Te for an INFP.

Not according to my results on the cognitive functions test. :lol:

I love the way you think.

Why, thank-you.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Not according to my results on the cognitive functions test. :lol:

Just because a function is scored as high or low, does not represent how well it is used. One can have a terribly low score for a function, but still use it wonderfully.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

Just because a function is scored as high or low, does not represent how well it is used. One can have a terribly low score for a function, but still use it wonderfully.

Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot for a minute there that the test measures how often functions are used, not how well they're used.