Archive for March 9th, 2009

More Americans Say They Have No Religion

Monday, March 9th, 2009

Maybe things wouldn’t be quite so bad if more Americans believed in Jesus.

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.

“No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state,” the study’s authors said.

In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.

Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.

Christians who aren’t Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.

The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.

The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.

About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.

The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don’t belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.

Respondents who called themselves “non-denominational Christian” grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered “seeker sensitive.” They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don’t usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.

Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.

The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.

Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren’t religious.

The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.

Original Link.

Obama to Reverse Policy on Stem Cells

Monday, March 9th, 2009

Here is another step Obama is making that points back to his radical support of abortions. This is no surprise to me, since he was a very abortion friendly state and U.S. senator, going as far as to vote against a bill that would have protected babies born alive during botched abortions.

WASHINGTON — President Obama will sign an executive order Monday lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, administration officials said Friday.

The order, which will fulfill a campaign pledge, will reverse limits put into place by then-President George W. Bush in August 2001.

Research on embryonic stem cells is considered promising, and could lead to treatments for a range of ailments, including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and spinal-cord injuries, scientists say. Embryonic cells are considered particularly potent because they can develop into any type of tissue.

But it is controversial because it involves the destruction of days-old human embryos. Opponents say the research requires killing one life to potentially save another, and they have focused on the promise of research using adult stem cells, which has made advances in recent years.

Some politicians who oppose legalized abortion support embryonic stem-cell research. But others say life begins at conception and thus the research requires the taking of human life.

The embryos used for the research typically are donated by couples who wound up creating more than they needed during fertility treatments and would otherwise be thrown away. Each embryo can yield one stem-cell line, which can continue replicating indefinitely.

The debate has never been about the legality of stem-cell research, which is legal in the U.S. At issue is whether the science qualifies for federal funding.

In a closely watched decision early in his presidency, Mr. Bush allowed federal funding for stem-cell research but limited it to stem-cell lines already in place at the time of his announcement, on Aug. 9, 2001. Mr. Bush said he didn’t want a federal incentive for more embryos to be destroyed.

Twenty-one lines then in existence qualified for funding, but researchers and patient-advocacy groups have complained that they were inadequate and not all of high quality.

Mr. Obama’s executive order will lift the Bush restrictions and allow National Institutes of Health funding for all stem-cell lines. The order will be signed at a White House event Monday.

As written, the law gives the administration discretion in determining whether the research qualifies for funding. Congress twice passed legislation overturning the ban, but Mr. Bush vetoed it both times. Supporters didn’t have the votes needed to override the veto.

Original Link.

“Iran’s Exponential Nuclear Program” by Todd Strandberg

Monday, March 9th, 2009

The never-ending concern over Iran’s nuclear program has surged back into the headlines. A new report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says that Israel is seriously considering unilateral military action against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The report noted that “Israelis see the option fading over the next one to two years, not only because of Iran’s nuclear progress and dispersion of its program but also because improved Iranian air defenses, especially the expected delivery of the S-300 surface-to-air missile system from Russia, are seen by Israel seriously limiting its military options.”

Another recent news report said that Iran now has enough low-enriched uranium to produce at least one nuclear weapon, and enough raw uranium to produce 30 nukes.

Despite all the turmoil from a recent parliamentary election, Israel’s leaders remain focused on the threat. This weekend, Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Israeli cabinet that Iran had “crossed the technological threshold” and “hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb.”

The key to nuclear bomb production is the enrichment process, in which the isotope uranium-235 is separated from uranium-238 in centrifuges. Natural uranium is 99 percent U-238 and less than one percent U-235. Reactor grade fuel only needs to be 4 percent U-235, while weapons grade material must be purified to 90 percent.

Iran currently has 6,000 centrifuges enriching uranium, and it will soon finish installing another group of 3,000 centrifuges in the next few months. Tehran’s ultimate plan is to move towards large-scale uranium enrichment that will involve 54,000 centrifuges.

Now that Iran has a nuclear reactor in operation, it can also produce plutonium. The spent fuel rods from the reactor have the potential to yield enough plutonium for several atomic bombs. Despite being a nation rich in oil, Iran has decided to build several nuclear power plants. Years ago, I said this was evidence enough that the Iranians will use their so-called “peaceful energy program” to produce atomic weapons.

A huge problem with Iran’s nuclear program is the lack of information. Many facilities in Iran have never been visited by nuclear inspectors. The intelligence community can only make best-guess assessments of when Iran will have the bomb. The Iranians may have thousands of centrifuges the West doesn’t know about.

The world needs to realize that Iran’s nuclear program is growing at an exponential rate. In a few months, it could become unstoppable as it gains the capability of producing dozens of bombs.

The U.S. nuclear program is a good example of how quickly arms production can accelerate: In 1945, after the two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, the next bomb was not ready until later in the month of August. By June of 1946, America had a stockpile of nine nuclear weapons. By 1949, we had 200 A-bombs. By 1952, our nuclear arsenal had grown to 2,422.

It’s doubtful that Iran will achieve the ability to produce thousands of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Iran only needs a few nukes to destroy the state of Israel. Nearly half of the Jewish population lives in three urban areas – Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa.

Israel is very reluctant to launch an attack. Iran now has hundreds of conventional missiles that can reach Israel. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said they would target Israel’s nuclear plant in a counter-attack. Hezbollah forces in south Lebanon or Syria might also be drawn into the conflict.

A surprise attack on Iran could be what isolates Israel in the last days. The Bible says that when the Antichrist turns against Israel, no other nation will come to its aid. If nations are angry with Israel now because she decided to defend herself against Gaza rocket strikes, I can’t imagine what will happen if Israel triggers a global oil crisis.

“For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city” (Zech. 14:2).

At some point, Israel’s survival instinct will engage and its leaders will give the go-ahead for a strike. Benjamin Netanyahu is about to become Israel’s next Prime Minister, and his hawkish stance on defense will certainly add to the drive for action.

— Todd

Original Link.

“Israeli Tennis Team Under Guard in Sweden: Anti-Semitism and The Politicization of Sports” by Dr. Phyllis Chesler

Monday, March 9th, 2009

Andy Ram, an Israeli tennis player, has just published a sober and heartbreaking piece about what the Israeli tennis team has just faced in competition in Sweden.

Today, another kind of situation faces the Israeli tennis team in Sweden. Andy Ram writes about it in YNet News today, below. He begins this way:

“In almost every respect, the events of the past week in Sweden are a sad moment for Tennis, for sports in general, and certainly for Israel. Never in my career as an athlete have I encountered such hatred and such blend of sports and politics.

Up until the last moment, the protestors attempted to prompt the cancelation of the David Cup match between Israel and Sweden. After we already landed here, their leader met with Swedish team captain Mats Wilander and asked him to call off the contest. “

Ram goes on to describe how the Israeli team had to be sequestered in their hotel, guarded there, enroute, and at the stadium by many police officers and anti-terrorist squads. Sadly, the stadium was empty since people feared riots or worse. He concludes:

“The feelings within the Israel team are very grim. All the innocence that prompted us to play tennis has disappeared, and this match, which was supposed to be a beautiful moment of sports, has become completely worthless. Nothing here is reminiscent of the Davis Cup; what we have is a war atmosphere, tension, and the feeling that something very bad may happen at any moment.”

This is exactly how it feels when one tries to speak the truth about Israel and America on the American campus. It is a similarly politicized war-zone, with ugly threats and menace which requires police protection. Certainly not the atmosphere in which to compete in sports or to deliver a lecture.

World: Are you watching? Can you see what is happening?

World: What are your plans? If we do not resist radical evil ultimately, we collaborate with it.

Original Link.

West Virgina Congressman Proposes Bill to Destroy U.S. Mining Industry

Monday, March 9th, 2009


Message to the Federal Government – Don’t Tread on Me (Click Here to Learn More)

Back before the election, Obama made the following comment:

“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Now a West Virgina congressman, Representative Nick Rahal, has introduced legislation to exactly that. He has a long list of Democrat co-sponsors.

It seems that Obama and the Democrats have absolutely no clue that the economy is in horrible shape, or how to get it to recover. If one wishes to help the economy recover, they certainly should not do everything they can to destroy a key American industry, costing American workers even more jobs.
The disconnect between these people and what is good for the country continues to amaze me.

According to a report in this month’s edition of the ICMJ Prospecting and Mining Journal, West Virginia Congressman and chairman of the House Resources Committee Nick Rahall has reintroduced legislation which could spell disaster for small-scale mining operations in the United States, and phase out large-scale mining operations as well.

Among a host of other things, The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2009 would:

  • add tens of millions of acres to existing areas deemed off-limits to mining, including but not limited to so-called “wilderness study areas” and areas “of critical environmental concern.”
  • permit any state or local municipality or Indian tribe to withdraw proposed or possible mining areas due to concerns over drinking water, wildlife habitat, historic resources, scenic vistas or, in the case of the Indian tribes, cultural or religious value.
  • force mine operators to obtain approved plans looking so far into the future as to assure, with certainty, that no treatment of discharged water will be necessary 10 years after mine closure,
  • allow for any mining plan to be altered or stopped altogether pending further information about scientific, biological, historical or cultural resources.
  • allow states to implement regulations beyond the scope of this legislation.
  • open the floodgates for civil litigation, allowing for anybody to file civil suit against the mine operator to force compliance with mining laws, and allowing courts to costs of litigation, including attorney and witness fees, as the court deems appropriate.
  • permit fining, to the tune of $25,000 per day, of mine operators who fail to comply with any portion of a required permit
  • entitle the federal government to an eight percent royalty on all locatable materials for any new mining operation

The list goes on and on and on, and reads a whole lot like what the federal government did to the timber industry in the Pacific northwest, only worse. And, of course, the roster of co-sponsors reads like a Who’s Who of ignorant liberals and environmentalists: Reps. Howard Berman (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Mike Honda (D-CA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Ron Kind (D-WI), Ed Markey (D-MA), George Miller (D-CA), John Salazar (D-CO), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA).

Regardless of who is involved, the consequences will be the same. Joblessness. Increased energy costs. More reliance upon foreign energy. The complete end of an industry. From the report:

[M]ining companies would be unable to deal with the unattainable requirements of these regulations, citizen lawsuits, thin profit margins, reporting requirements, and the uncertainty that comes with the federal government’s new authority to halt a mining operation when ‘undue degradation’ is occurring or a scientific, biological or cultural resource is discovered. Many areas that may have potential would be inaccessible. No one in their right mind would provide funding for exploration or operations under the proposed conditions.

Under normal circumstances, I’d look at something like this, an idea which makes no common sense whatsoever, and write it off as just another proposed bill which will fail at some point in the legislative process. These, however, are by no means normal times, and the Democrats are by no means normal Americans. Never before have I seen a political party so hell bent on driving a country into the ground.

I’m not sure it matters that implementation of such regulations would mean the end of an industry, a gargantuan step back in terms of energy independence, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and a tremendous hit to the American economy. I’m not even sure it matters that there would likely be an adverse effect on the environment they purportedly want to protect, as operations shut down here would be stepped up in countries with less control on environmental impact.

Normally, I’d think that these sorts of things would matter to our lawmakers but now, more than ever, I think we see that the Democrats, in the majority, have no problem putting party before country, ideology before common sense.

If, after all, the Democrats cared about certain industries, we’d have seen a forced restructuring of American automakers. If they cared about energy independence and the creation of jobs, we’d see the expansion of oil drilling operations off our coasts and in ANWR. If they cared about the economy, we’d see fiscal restraint and responsibility. And if they truly cared about the environment–they don’t, as global warming is less about the globe and more about the global redistribution of wealth–they would not pursue measures like cap-and-trade, which would force more industry into nations like China and India with less pollution controls. They care about none of these things, and it’s about time we show the American public exactly where the Democrats’ loyalties lie . . . to party and to the perpetuation of power — not to the nation, or her people.

Original Link.

The Unlearned Lessons of Gaza

Monday, March 9th, 2009

This week Israel’s UN ambassador Gabriela Shalev sent a complaint to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about the rain of rockets that keep falling on Israel from Gaza.

She stated that “These ongoing attacks not only hinder efforts to reach a stable and durable ceasefire, but they represent an ongoing threat to the peace and security of Israel, as well as the people of Gaza,” and warned that “Israel will not tolerate, and will respond accordingly to attacks against its citizens.”

This was no attempt to lay diplomatic groundwork for a serious Israeli military response to the rocket fire; the outgoing, internally bickering Olmert government is hardly capable of that at this point. Instead Shalev’s complaint had the character of a pathetic gesture.

Yet it wasn’t long ago that this government—with the winding-down of Operation Cast Lead, which formally ended on January 18—was engaged in seemingly dramatic diplomatic activity signaling important gains from the war. On January 16, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was in Washington where, at a joint press conference, she and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced a rapidly-concocted Memorandum of Understanding under which the United States was supposed to work together with the international community to halt the smuggling of Iranian weapons into Gaza.

And on January 18 itself, the heads of state of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the Czech Republic—both at a gathering along with Arab leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and in a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem—“pledged to work to prevent Hamas from rearming” as a Haaretz report put it at the time.

And the words were followed by actions. On January 22 the U.S. Navy intercepted a ship—a Cypriot-flagged Russian one leased to Iran—in the Red Sea on suspicion that it was carrying arms to Hamas; the ship was eventually detained, and the arms unloaded, in Limassol, Cyprus. And on January 23 a French frigate sailed for waters off the Gaza coast to take part in stopping the smuggling.

Seemingly, then, the Israeli government with its two main components, the Kadima and Labor parties, could claim that its approach—which involved ending the war before Hamas had been defeated, focusing world attention on the arms-smuggling problem, and relying on the world community to stop Hamas from rebuilding its arsenal—had succeeded.

What happened, then, in the six weeks from those optimistic days to the rather abject sending of Shalev’s complaint to Ban? What happened was that another 50 rockets and 40 mortar shells were fired at Israel from Gaza; already by February 15 two security chiefs told the Israeli cabinet that the smuggling had resumed with Egypt once again doing little to stop it, and meanwhile the Western naval activity against the smuggling seemed to have stopped as the worldwide financial crisis and Iranian nuclearization trumped little Israel and its border problems.

Indeed, Shalev in her letter to Ban specifically mentioned two recent attacks that bring back the days before Cast Lead was launched: a Kassam rocket that landed in a yard and set a home on fire in Sderot, and a Grad rocket that destroyed several classrooms in a school in Ashkelon—a hit that would have been much worse had the school not been closed for the Sabbath.

Also on Tuesday the new U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, was in Israel, and she stressed America’s “unrelenting” commitment to Israel’s security and said the rocket attacks had to stop. Yet a day earlier Clinton had been at another gathering in Sharm el-Sheikh where the world community had—ongoing smuggling, resumed rocket attacks, and all—pledged to pour $4.4 billion into Hamas-ruled Gaza, with the U.S. contributing $300 million directly and another $600 million to the West Bank Palestinian Authority, which also transfers large sums to Gaza.

Seemingly, then, the Kadima and Labor parties—if they were interested in learning from experience and not just in upholding a capitulationist worldview that, they think, puts them in the Americans’ and Europeans’ good graces—should by now already be drawing different conclusions from Cast Lead than the ones that seemed, to them, warranted in the heady days after it ended.

Sober, accurate conclusions from this final failure of an outgoing, unpopular government would be that:

* There is, as always, no substitute for defeating an enemy on the ground.

* There is no force on earth that will stop arms smuggling into Gaza, or armed aggression against Israel from Gaza, except Israel itself.

* It is much easier for Western leaders to make grand gestures of supporting Israel than to act on them; the Europeans, as always, see their interests as lying with the Arabs, and the United States has way too much on its plate to worry about Grad rockets traversing the Sinai.

* Support for “the Palestinians,” even when they constitute a Hamas entity, is reflexive and unrelated to Israel’s real needs and the situation on the ground.

* For Israel to win any of its wars in the future will require, to a considerable extent, defying the West and the world community rather than pretending to work in concert with them.

Because of its failure—among other things—either to apply or learn these principles in the Second Lebanon War or Operation Cast Lead, on February 10 the current Kadima- and Labor-led government lost the Israeli elections. The incoming prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has a deeper grasp of reality but faces formidable challenges of balancing Israel’s real security needs with its relations with the West.

Original Link.

Brought to you by:




Christian Gifts from Israel – The Jerusalem Gift Shop

Authors Warn That Many Textbooks Distort Religion

Monday, March 9th, 2009

I’m not one to see conspiracy theories every often, so I’d have to say that with textbooks, editors are so afraid of inflaming Muslims, a relatively easy thing to do since their sensibilities are so easy bruised, that they tend to show Islam in a “kind” way; a service they do not typically offer to the other religions of the world.
I have seen an example of this in my son’s textbook. Judaism and Christianity had one page each, which for the most part accurately reflected the history of the religions, but did use terms similar to the ones the article below shows. But in the case of Islam, they deemed it necessary to list the “Five Pillars”, which is a tenant of Islam and does not reflect the history of the religion. If the editors were willing to list the “Five Pillars”, they should also have listed the tenants for all the other religions. They definitely showed favor to Islam over the other world religions.

Jesus was a Palestinian? That’s what one public school textbook says.

Although Jesus lived in a region known in his time as Palestine, the use of the term “Palestinian,” with its modern connotations, is among the hundreds of textbook flaws cited in a recent five-year study of educational anti-Semitism detailed in the book “The Trouble with Textbooks: Distorting History and Religion.”

Authors Gary Tobin and Dennis Ybarra of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research found some 500 imperfections and distortions concerning religion in 28 of the most widely used social studies and history textbooks in the United States.

Ybarra, a research associate at the institute, called the above example “shocking.”

A “true or false” question on the origins of Christianity asserted that “Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus.” The teacher’s edition says this is “true.”

But even though Jesus is the founder of Christianity, the question ignores the fact that he was Jewish. And Ybarra said, “The Christian scriptures say that he preached in Judea and Galilee, not Palestine,” a term that was used at the time as a less specific description of the broader region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

Ybarra says part of the problem is that publishers employ or contract with writers who are not experts in the subject, or they may use out-of-date information. Or they may bow to special interest groups.

“They’re under pressure from all kinds of minority groups, religious groups, and they try to satisfy everyone and that results in content that is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator,” he said. “And so, in that process, things can be missed. Errors can survive.”

Ybarra also claims that the textbooks tend not to treat Christianity, Judaism and Islam equally.

“Islam has a privileged position,” he said. “It’s not critiqued or criticized or qualified, whereas Judaism and Christianity are.”

One example is in the glossary of “World History: Continuity and Change.” It calls the Ten Commandments “moral laws Moses claimed to have received from the Hebrew God,” while the entry for the Koran contains no such qualifier in saying it is the “Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from God.”

But First Amendment scholar Dr. Charles Haynes, who has written extensively on the subject of public schools and religion, says he thinks sometimes the criticisms go a little too far.

“There’s no conspiracy in the textbook industry to favor one religion over another. … I think the group that bangs the pot the loudest gets the most attention,” he said.

“Having said all that, I think the textbooks are working at trying to treat everybody the same way,” he added. “They made mistakes. They’ve got to work on it.”

Experts agree, though, that part of the problem rests in the fact that there are so few textbook publishers.

Seventy-five percent of public school books are published by just three companies: Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill and Pearson Education. None responded to requests for comment for this story.

“It’s a big problem right now that we have so few choices in our textbooks,” Haynes said. “This is an industry. … It’s a marketplace. They’re trying to sell their textbooks.”

But Ybarra said it goes deeper than pure economics. He thinks the school books are being used as tools for propaganda, particularly to perpetuate negative attitudes towards Christianity, Israel and pro-Palestinian views concerning the Middle East.

“We fear that this is creating a generation of biased school children,” he said. “Some of our projects in the higher education realm with some of these same subject matters, we find that students do show up at universities with these prejudices.”

Ybarra maintains that, ultimately, parents and communities need to get involved and demand accountability from school boards, publishers and scholars on what goes into the materials being used to teach fresh, young minds.

Original Link.