Copernican

joined 2 years ago
[–] Copernican 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Well I think the Unions and government need to push back on this (the AG already is). I 100% believe that this should be reveresed. But reading the article it states that losing your teaching license is possible punishment. It's really easy to be high and mighty when it's not your livelihood and job on the line. If you need to wait it out while the courts settle it what do teachers need to do to protect their jobs, stay in compliance, and avoid retaliation until this gets settled? How many teachers already are in compliance just by teaching regular US history curriculum that says "yeah, protestants read the bible and disputes on interpretation of the bible with catholics is part of the history of America." I think it's important to note that the Gutenberg press published the first printed bible. With the increase of education and literacy lay people no longer had to get teachings directly from the literate Orthodoxy. This allowed to different interpretation and rise of different religions which led to conflict, etc...

[–] Copernican 0 points 7 months ago

The existence of the Bible is historical fact and artifact. There is historical merit in studying the various religious beliefs of historical peoples that factored into their values and thinking. Protestantism is factually a thing. Different colonies and denominational belief is a thing and a topic in American history. What made Quakers Quakers and how did that impact the Pennsylvania.

There's a difference between teaching the bible, teaching theology, and teaching histories of religion. There's definitely questions of what we are teaching and what is appropriate in public primary and secondary schools and in what subject, but I don't think there is anything in and of itself bad if the historical religious beliefs and impact on historical civic life are discussed.

[–] Copernican -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

What's the difference here between teaching the bible and teaching history? I recall getting through Hon and AP US History and Civics with and understanding of protestantism conflicts, Calvinism, and Deism. The law and mandate is bullshit, but what is the actual curriculum requirements. If you are teaching the historical content of the Bible that means you can also teach about atheists that took issue with it. Is there a lot of room for malicious compliance?

[–] Copernican 0 points 7 months ago

Sorry. how does AOC defeating democratic moderate in a primary impact a republican getting elected. I don't think moderate D's or voting R on the presidential ballot. A moderate Democrat is still voting democrat.

[–] Copernican 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I hate this divisive bullshit. Democracies require pluralities. You need to be a big tent party to govern.

[–] Copernican 1 points 7 months ago

simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.

[–] Copernican 2 points 7 months ago

Why didn't local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.

[–] Copernican 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This jezebel garbage is pretty rage baity. The NYT had a much better and informative take: What Jamaal Bowman’s Loss Means for the Left https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/nyregion/jamaal-bowman-squad-left.html

And

Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/nyregion/bowman-latimer-house-new-york.html

On the ground, though, even some of Mr. Bowman’s allies conceded that his campaign was in trouble long before the group got involved, hamstrung by unforced errors, staff churn and strategic missteps.

The biggest took place last fall when Mr. Bowman, in a hurry to get to the Capitol, pulled the fire alarm. He later apologized, but he was charged with a misdemeanor, and the timing, just a week before Oct. 7, could hardly have been worse.

Opposition researchers turned up old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories and publicized video of Mr. Bowman calling reports that Hamas sexually abused Israeli women during its attack “propaganda.” (He later apologized.)

Relatively few Democrats in the area stepped up to defend him. Some explained that in four years in office, the congressman had rarely shown interest in getting to know their communities.

[–] Copernican 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.

[–] Copernican 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Also didn't help being so adamant dismissing claims of all sexual violence on oct 7. He didn't understand his constituents which changed slightly in redistricting, and for some reason the Bernie and AOC rallies occurred like 10 miles outside of his district which was most at risk for primary. Probably doesn't help referring to all people with any sympathy towards Israel as being part of a Zionist regime. Probably should have focused more on domestic issues that got him elected instead of focusing heavily on foreign policy that was divisive in his district.

[–] Copernican 1 points 7 months ago

Lol. There is nothing in existence which has a choice of its being thrown into existence. Is all existence immoral?

view more: ‹ prev next ›