Santiago II

You had immigrants right off the boat who were recruited on the docks and went right into battle. I think they deserve some consideration. The you have the native population. Total of over 360K dead. They should all be considered.

We seemed to stand out in that we were among the first countries successfully introducing the idea of abolition.

What about the states that didn't have slaves? What's their responsibility? Do we give any consideration to peoples families who fought for the union?

Maybe the first time in recent history when the word "trans" was associated with a greater level of sanity.

Teaching Civics should be a great idea. The content of whats taught is the bigger issue.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-to-keep-crt-and-action-civics-out-of-k-12/ I would also advocate that every parent who is able, should homeschool, or send their kids to a well vetted private school.

Can't be because they got a story wrong. Can't be because they're partisan hacks. If that were the case, nobody would ever read the NY Times either

My concern is that you're using creative tangents to obscure the actual questions, then starting another conversation without addressing the original question. You can score well on tests and still believe things that harm us as a country. This aren't mutually exclusive options. My solution is not to indoctrinate kids into critical theory.

What does that have to do with their sociocultural education?

I wonder if they're both members of a local school board, how are they influencing kids at that level? I wonder how many other members are on that board, and what the boards voting record looks like. That's an issue all by itself

We're talking about splitting up on ideological lines. We speak of this as members of the most powerful nation on earth. That's a huge luxury that's not a given. The trade off is giving that power away. The problem is you trade self expression for collective power. Without power, you become victim to the more powerful. Most of the time, the more powerful re-consolidate groups with little regard for your desire for self expression. The other issue with splitting on ideological lines, as opposed to heritage or some other fixed trait, is the almost infinite amount of ideological variations you can imagine. There may be constant fracturing of component groups, as we saw with the Protestant reformation. It didn't stop with Luther.

If you're right, then God doesn't exist, and no one's mind can make Him exist. Believing in something that doesn't exist, doesn't make that something exist. Believing in something is only proof of a belief, not of the thing that's believed. If Jimmy and I are wrong, then we're wrong and no amount of belief is going to make us right. If Jimmy and I are right, we're right because we've accurately discerned reality. We didn't create that reality.

What I'm saying is about logic, not God. It's true whether you believe God or whether you don't. I said that very explicitly.

That might be what you think you're saying. What you don't seem to get is that if something ISN'T real, you can't make it exist, AND, if something IS real, you can can't make it not exist. In either case, what you believe is irrelevant to the actual truth. Truth is something that exists outside of you and independent of you. You can see the truth or deny it, but you don't make it. You're saying something that hasn't been true since your second post