Creationism in Texas public schools: Undermining the charter movement.

This was a tough article to "read."  Yes it is long, but it is loaded with information.  The sub-title IMHO say it all, "An investigation into charter schools’ dishonest and unconstitutional science, history, and “values” lessons."  For those that follow the Reich and dominionist movement, there are a few familiar names.

Some of Responsive Ed’s lessons appear harmless at first, but their origin is troubling. Students also learn about “discernment,” which is defined as “understanding the deeper reasons why things happen.” In other sections, students learn other moral lessons such as “values” and “deference.”

These lessons were lifted directly from a company called Character First Education, which was founded by an Oklahoma businessman named Tom Hill. He is a follower of Bill Gothard, a minister who runs the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a Christian organization that teaches its members to incorporate biblical principles into daily life. IBLP is considered a cult by some of its former followers. Gothard developed character qualities associated with a list of “49 General Commands of Christ” that Hill adopted for his character curriculum. Hill then removed Gothard’s references to God and Bible verses and started marketing the curriculum to public schools and other public institutions.

The values taught by Responsive Ed can often be found word for word on Gothard’s website. The Responsive Ed unit on genetics includes “Thoroughness: Knowing what factors will diminish the effectiveness of my work or words if neglected.” The only difference is that Gothard’s website also adds “Proverbs 18:15” after the quote.

Many of Gothard’s teachings revolve around obedience to men, especially that of the wife and the children. Gothard has upset even other conservative Christians. In an interview for an article published by Religion Dispatches, Don Veinot, a conservative Christian and founder of the Midwest Christian Outreach, accused Gothard of “creating a culture of fear.” Gothard has been accused of emotional and sexual abuse by some of his former followers, “happening as far back as the mid- to late-1970’s and as recently as this year.”

Responsive Ed and Character First may have removed the references to God and Bible verses from the curriculum that is being used in public schools, but it is clear that the line between church and state is still being blurred. And nothing that Gothard has created should be allowed near children.

Responsive Ed has plenty of connections to other fundamentalist right-wing organizations as well. Its website’s “Helpful Information” section directs parents to Focus on the Family under the heading of “Family Support.” Under “Values” it steers students to the Traditional Values Coalition, whose website includes a header that says, “Say NO to Obama. Stop Sharia in America.”

Creationism in Texas public schools: Undermining the charter movement.

GOP lieutenant governor hopefuls back creationism | Dallas Morning News

"As a Christian, certainly creationism should be taught." Ah, the stupid, it hurts!! And which type of creation would you like taught? Ex nihilo, creation from chaos, world parent. emergence or maybe earth-diver. Or more specifically which of the hundreds of narratives should be taught? You say teach the controversy, ",,,expose students to both sides,,," but science does not have two sides. As Lawrence Krauss states, ",,,most often, one side is wrong." Creationism is not science, never has been never will be, a point strongly upheld in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) trial:

"In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

What many seem to ignore when considering this issue, creationism/ID is an alternative religious explanation NOT an alternative scientific explanation. There is no way to teach creationism from a scientifically objective perspective without pointing out that the actual scientific evidence thoroughly disproves it. It was a point that was made clear in the landmark 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard:

",,,the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects,,,[t]he court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief." Ibid. Because the Creationism Act was thus a law furthering a particular religious belief,,,,"

In its simplicity what Chief Justice, William Rehnquist was stating, teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion. It is science versus theology, which brings to bare a point I alluded to in the opening, whose theology are we going to teach?

__________

All four Republican lieutenant governor hopefuls have embraced the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Sen. Dan Patrick, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said in the first televised debate of the campaign Thursday night that they favor teaching that there are flaws in the theory that humans evolved from lower life forms.

Late last month, state Board of Education members adopted new high school science books that include full coverage of evolution without the disclaimers sought by social conservatives and other critics of Charles Darwin’s theory.

While none of the lieutenant governor candidates mentioned the board’s decision, three — Patrick, Patterson and Staples — blasted teaching only evolution as a form of “political correctness.” They linked it to what they described as a broader moral decline.

“The breakup of the family in this country has started when we took God out of the classroom,” said Patrick, a radio talk show host.

GOP lieutenant governor hopefuls back creationism | Dallas Morning News

Police: Texas Lt. Gov. Dewhurst Asked to Get Relative Out of Jail | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Ok for the sake of argument, let's say this is true: "There is nothing criminal here," Felty said. "When I listen to this recording, I hear much of what every family member has when they have a relative incarcerated." Then why did he asked for the cellphone numbers of a judge and the Collin County sheriff? Is that normal protocol from the general public?

"Sergeant, you don't know me, but every year I'm the No.1 pick of all the law enforcement agencies in Texas," Dewhurst is heard saying in the recording. "I'm the No. 1 pick and I want you to do whatever is the proper thing." So is that a threat or a hollow boast? Nothing like tooting your own horn.

Whether anything "criminal" occurred, remains to be seen. I have a hard time believing he, as the Lt Govenor, doesn't know what the proper procedure is and the fact he named dropped just adds to the insult and the abuse of power. If his concern was his family member then why not procure a lawyer, and post bond instead of trying to twist the officer's arm. Kudos to Maness!!

Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst personally called police and asked to talk to the highest-ranking officer about getting a relative out of jail, Allen police said.

He also asked for the cellphone numbers of a judge and the Collin County sheriff, which a sergeant declined to give him.

The relative, Ellen Bevers, an Allen elementary school teacher, was jailed on charges of shoplifting at a Kroger grocery store on Aug. 3, police said.

Police released an audio recording of the phone call late Wednesday, after a request from NBC 5, under the Texas open records law.

Police: Texas Lt. Gov. Dewhurst Asked to Get Relative Out of Jail | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth