The Texas State Board of Education approved a new curriculum that will incorporate stories from the Bible into elementary school education.

In an eight-to-seven vote on Tuesday, the board approved the state-written “Bluebonnet” curriculum, which infuses Bible stories into language arts materials for students in kindergarten through fifth grade. All four Democrats on the board were joined by three Republicans in voting unsuccessfully against the curriculum.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Seems to be their thing. They completely ignore the “well regulated” part of the 2nd Amendment as well.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Well in the context of the time “well regulated” meant something completely different. You have to be careful not to make the same mistake.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        I keep hearing this, but “regulated” has meant basically the same thing since we first took the word from Latin. If by “the context of the time” you mean “as defined in contemporary dictionaries”, then the meaning is basically the same.

        Despite the popularity of the claim, I have yet to see an actual piece of evidence that “well-regulated” was universally understood to mean “well-organized and well-stocked”, and not “directed by rules”.

        Interpreting language from a legal document on any other basis but contemporary dictionary definitions is disingenuous at best, and at minimum requires substantially more evidence than I’ve ever been presented.

        • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It shows up with both a modern meaning but also the meaning of “armed, trained, and disciplined” in the writings of contemporary politicians at both the federal and state levels. Example: Federalist #27 has Alexander Hamilton using it more in the modern sense while he quotes an argument from someone else using it in the antiquated one.

          Ultimately it won’t matter either way because that part of the amendment is not even required for the rest of it to survive. If you were to push this issue, you may even discover unintended consequences you probably do not actually want, like the formation of more militia groups.

          If you actually want to implement gun control measures you need to throw gun owners a bone. Rebuild the trust, otherwise they will fight even the tiniest measure with the maximum effort, to the extent that a YouTuber nearly displaced an incumbent Texan politician over it.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            If you were to push this issue, you may even discover unintended consequences you probably do not actually want, like the formation of more militia groups.

            I do want that. Preferably in the form of State Guards, where citizens are locally trained to safely and responsibly use and maintain firearms, as well as physical training and tactical coordination.

            Personally, I think the argument that “the citizens are the militia” is half right. I think every citizen should be a part, in some capacity, of their State Guard. Nothing too crazy, 3-6 months of training and then a period of reserve during which you can be called upon to serve. Not unlike the brief mandatory military service required in other countries.