[SomethingWitty]

I do not see why this is an issue. It is simply an activity that develops the idea that socialist/communist countries have used certain objects to symbolize their countries.

Both the first article, and the second article look to be looking for a story where there isn't any. A lot of it is taken out of context, or no context is provided what-so-ever. This is yellow journalism.

There also have been reports that the curriculum – contrary to recent Supreme Court rulings – says the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the right to bear arms, is limited to state-run organizations.


“The collective right’s advocates believed that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather it [the Second Amendment] recognized the right of a state to arm its militia. It recognized limited individual rights only when it was exercised by members of a functioning, organized militia while actively participating in the militia’s activities.”

A major area of American political history is the differing interpretations of the Constitution and how Federal power has been expanded and contracted over the our history. Just because there is a Supreme Court decision does not mean that we should be writing collective rights advocates out of history. They have had an impact on our recent history, and will continue to be vocal group regardless of a Supreme Court decision. What if DC vs Heller had gone differently (the NRA wouldn't touch it because they were afraid it would)? Should the individual right's advocates be written out of history or marginalized?

In one scenario, students are asked to study the tenets of Islam, and critics say the materials provided exceed impartial review of another faith, extending into requirements of conversion and moral imperatives.

A computer presentation utilized as part of a study of Islam includes information on how to convert, as well as verses denigrating other faiths.

I fail to see how learning about the 5 Pillars of Islam, requirements of conversion, or moral imperatives (I am guessing this refers to their legal system). The Islamic Caliphate is a pretty damn big deal when it comes to world history, and just like to study of any conquering empire, it is important to understand not only the way they operated, but also the way they absorbed conquered peoples. My experience in highschool has been that the ascent and decline of the Islamic empires are treated no different than the Roman or Mongolian empires.

But there is no mention of his documented sex activities with a child or his penchant for beheading entire indigenous people groups.

Judging people that have long been dead by the standards of our time is not a very good idea. Furthermore, neither of these facts are exceptional, and are of little historical importance.

It pisses me off to no end that there are people that believe history should merely be taught simply as a morality tale that ends with the creation of the 21st Century United States. I don't want to memorize that the American Civil War was just about Lincoln wanting to preserve the Union, and the racist South wanting to keep their slaves. I want to study how and why race relations were different in the South, about how blacks fought bravely for the North, and about how the South also had black soldiers. I also want to learn about how Abraham Lincoln used the Federal Government to imprison his political opponents, and suspended Habeus Corpus. The morality-play version of history takes something that is dynamic and exciting, and distills it into something that is dull, and unbelievable. Furthermore, when we approach history from this perspective of having flawless heros, it discourages critical thinking, and I do not think that is something we should be doing.