The Cobb County Board of Education Vs. All of Science

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 07:46pm

The art is the outlet. ^^

What about history majors? Just wondering - do you consider that an art or a science?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-09-30 07:54pm

Cyril wrote:The art is the outlet. ^^

What about history majors? Just wondering - do you consider that an art or a science?

Well if my experience is anything to go by you spend your time arguing about the rights and wrongs of various actions. Mainly its the neo communists versus the rest, and trying to use various sources to justify your position. So History is neither art or science it is the subjective interpetation of facts to suit the PC dogma of the year.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 07:56pm

...aaaand you have no idea what you are talking about.

History at it's basic is the chronicling of past events in the most objective way possible.

And I have yet to meet a 'neo communist' historian.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-09-30 07:56pm

Cyril wrote:The art is the outlet. ^^

What about history majors? Just wondering - do you consider that an art or a science?

A wast of time.
Go engineerings!

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-09-30 08:14pm

Cyril wrote:...aaaand you have no idea what you are talking about.

History at it's basic is the chronicling of past events in the most objective way possible.

And I have yet to meet a 'neo communist' historian.

My bad, I was refering to the characters within History departments and to how it often is used for, not to what it is. It is, however, very difficult to seperate history from objective chronicling of historical fact and subjective politics.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 08:16pm

Mmm. I have yet to meet any of these characters you describe. Perhaps college professors are less corrupt?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-09-30 08:24pm

Cyril wrote:Mmm. I have yet to meet any of these characters you describe. Perhaps college professors are less corrupt?

Try New Zealand, trust me, History is politics. Having said that, no History lecturer would ever teach incorrect facts, but the interpretation is always interesting. This promotes a lot of very intereting debate among students, which was probably the point.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-09-30 08:25pm

Ah, ok.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-09-30 08:30pm

Cyril wrote:Ah, ok.

There ya go

history as subjective politics.

Carcharodon · Post by **Carcharodon** » 2002-10-06 07:30am

Darth Wong wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:The establishment clause places no limits on the powers of the states to establish religion. It explicitly limits the power of Congress to do so; it is only through erroneous Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court over the last century that the clause has been applied to the states. There is nothing in the language of the Constitution to indicate that the establishment clause applies to the states.
Ah, so the states have a legal loophole through which they can escape the principles upon which the country was founded. Goody for them.

No, they can't. In theory. It's called the "Incorporation Doctrine," and it's the reason we finally got Brown v. Board and other landmark civil rights verdicts. In 1833 the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government. That was overturned in 1925 with Gitlow v. New York. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," meant that states, too, were bound by the Bill of Rights.

Gitlow actually dealt with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (Gitlow was the leader of a communist wacko group advocating violent overthrow of the government, in violation of state law.) The Court upheld Gitlow's conviction because the danger of violence constitued a priority, but also ruled that in all other cases, the freedoms of speech and the press were "fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states." The Court did not say that all parts of the Bill of Rights were to be incorporated, because that wasn't the issue before it. (The Second, Third, and Seventh Amendments have never come up for incorporation.)

Nevertheless, the precedent set by Gitlow opened the door for later "selective" incorporation of almost everything else, INCLUDING FREEDOM FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION BY IDIOTS ON SCHOOLBOARDS. There is nothing "erroneous" about this interpretation of the phrases "LIBERTY" and "DUE PROCESS OF LAW." To take away freedom of religion would require the proper due process of law--that is, repealing the First Amendment.