Thread title is the same as this Wall Street Journal article.
I’ll post some snippets:
So, it is out of the Biology classroom and into the Social Studies classroom?
Is this “ok” because, indeed, religion does have a role in history? Or is this going too far?
I certainly have my own opinions on this but will let the thread roll a bit before weighing in myself.
Teach about everything possible! History classes are in the bare minimum and a lot of students don’t know much about American history other then more or less “Washington was the first President, Lincoln freed the slaves, and Dubya went into Iraq”. Use some old textbooks that actually tells interesting stories about history and not just vague bare outlines or real history books like Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People.
Sure.
And I agree history could be taught much better than it generally is.
However, the Texas board above does not want to teach about everything. They want to toss Marshall and Chavez in the dustbin. More, they want to couch whatever happened in a religious context. Perhaps most alarmingly (from the article): “The curriculum, they say, should clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good – and a key reason for American exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.”
This is horrifying.
I agree with you.
The Texas Board of Education would be a joke, if jokes were frightening. Read this Texas Monthly article:
pravnik, it gets worse! Even though that information describes only the Texas Board of Education, it affects every State Board of Ed. Texas is so large and orders so many textbooks that the scope and focus of the textbooks they approve is limiting the kinds of textbooks that are being published and made available. So textbooks in Massachusetts or California may become more conservative just because options are limited by what Texas likes.
And the truthiness shall set you free.
After reading the OP but not the WSJ article, I was ready to give my opinion: of course religion belongs in history class, because it was a significant part of history. The question is whether it’s been de-emphasized too much currently, which I don’t have the answer to.
However, the Rev. Marshall is obviously not qualified to influence the board because of his bizarre views. I also know that David Barton, the other guy mentioned in the OP, is head of an organization called “Wallbuilders” whose goal is to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. So both of those guys are completely unqualified to have their opinions count.
Then I read your comment later that they want to “clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good” - that’s not just a really really really bad idea, it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
Not to mention very arguably wrong - or at the very least - highly, highly, highly contentious…
Paging Der Trihs, paging Mr Der Trihs.
This is idiocy. Is there any oversight on this? Can they just walk in and change this without someone whapping them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and giving them a curt ‘No! Bad revisionist zealots!’?
I’m becoming more despondent lately as I see stuff like this, watch the Sotomayer hearing, and just reflect in general about how fellow citizens can elect such complete Neanderthals as Boehner.
Maybe it really is time to divide the country up. There are vast parts of the US who want a Christian-centered government, fight healthcare reform, and want to see gays back in the closet. At the same time they are happy to feed from the Federal teat while decrying big goverment.
I see it getting worse rather than better, partly becuase our sources of news are now so balkanized that we don’t even have a common set of “facts” to argue about any more.
However, California is also a huge market, and they have their own standards as to what is required in textbooks. So what is acceoptable to Texas may not be acceptable to California. My wife is an elementary school teacher, and I already see that many of the textbooks are labeled “California edition”. Maybe the same will happen in Texas.
I’m genuinely curious to see how you’d divide. Seeing has how there are plenty of anti-gay people in what were ostensibly gay areas such as California I don’t think it’s as simple as you think.
Probably something like this (an oldie but a goodie) 
Well if people didn’t fight tooth and nail to have a liberal slant on history classes this wouldn’t occur. If the profound impact of Christianity on the history of this country were taught appropriately it wouldn’t need to be a fight. You’re reaping what you’ve sown.
It certainly is. Children will be taught their version of history instead of yours! Oh, my!
This is clearly unconstitutional, per the SCOTUS rulings on the 1st amendment. Very troubling, indeed, although anyone who thinks this is “horrifying” shouldn’t cheapen that word in this context. Throwing acid in schoolgirls’ faces or raping and killing people in Darfur is horrifying. This is not.
’
LonesomePolecat a relativist? Who knew?
Is it though?
These guys are just “advising”. Even if their recommendations are accepted is there enough distance between them and the final policy makers to save them from infringing on the constitution?
Well, I think there is an unspoken context here.
To be more clear it is a horrifying assault on separation of church and state. Horrifying in particular because it is targeting children.