Quote:
...
But isn't that the attitude of the teachers and professors so the student can get an acceptable grade and move on with life? I'm sure the argument is that today's educators are open to debate and oppossing thoughts if it can be supported. I have to feel that is just more Pelosi. The classes that force the indoctrination are usually madated to graduate and most students just want it checked off so they can move on.
I have yet to see wholesale evidence to support this. Yes, there are individual teachers who do lean one way or the other, and every now and then they do get called on the carpet for their biases. Most of my teachers encouraged debate, but mandated that such debate be based on fact and historical example, not innuendo, generalization, and "well, that's what (insert political party here) always does" type arguments. That's where most political arguments fall short, on both sides of the aisle. They don't look at the facts of the situation, rather they color them in generalizations.
As for graduation requirements, I don’t know about your high school or college, but I had a ton of math, science, engineering, language (english and foreign), phys-ed, and other classes that were required in addition to history. In fact, history and civics were a surprisingly small part of my required transcript. Yes, history and civics are a bit more prone to political bias than the other pursuits. However, the “bias” argument disallows one fundamental truth–students want an “A” and will write anything, whether they believe it or not, to get it.
Quite frankly, I don’t want to be taught by someone who shares my beliefs lock, stock, and barrel. I take classes to learn and to be challenged. If the (insert persuasion here) can’t handle listening to the ideas of (other persuasion here), then are they actually learning? If I can’t justify my beliefs in the face of an opposing viewpoint, how valid are my beliefs? Having someone blindly reaffirm what I believe doesn’t make me a better person, it just makes me blind in a blindman’s company. (That’s largely why I enjoy the debates here. It forces me to examine and defend, and clarify my beliefs.)
Quote:
...
Kevin, I think your last paragraph goes with the belief of the Consitution being a "living document" which is supported by the "Religion of Law" and its followers. I don't feel that is supported by the populous, but I think the indoctrination of our youth is sliding the support that way.
The Constitution is by its very nature a living document. At its most basic level, it's words on a piece of paper. Those words have meaning based solely on what the judiciary says they mean. As the judiciary changes, so may the interpretation. That's why we now have 9 justices on the court. The Constitution is both very specific and very vague at the same time, so there are many opportunities for interpretation. Court decisions are rarely unanimous, so clearly there are differences in interpretation amongst the justices. The Constitution has been amended 27 times in its 220 year history, the most recent being in 1992. Some of these amendments merely clarify language, while others define it. It cannot be an absolute document for no other reason than our founding fathers could not have known--and had no intention of pretending to know--what the future would bring. They built a framework. Subsequent generations put up the walls, built additions, and occasionally have given a few rooms new paint.
Later,
K
) The reality changed over the years, though, and the Constitution rewritten to reflect those changes. I think views on religion relative to the Constitution are undergoing a similar revision. There’s no denying the Christian foundation of our country. When the framers wrote about religious freedom, they weren’t worried so much about protecting the rights of agnostics as they were making sure the church itself couldn’t rise to a theocracy. But as times and our population has changed, we now have to include a far broader range of religious–and secular–beliefs. The intent is still the same–to keep the country from becoming a theocracy. That doesn’t necessarily remove the religious foundation from the Constitution. Government is still allowed to reference and pay homage to religion. But it cannot establish policy based solely on one particular set of beliefs.