And when the church controls the state, killing people follows, as the night the day.
Why is it any more horrifying than people who try to downplay the massive involvement of Christian religious organizations in the formation of this country?
It’s interesting how redacting the involvement of religion OUT of the curriculum is not seen to violate the separation clause, but redacting it back in is.
Of course Social Studies curriculums are political footballs for people who want their view of history to be the mainline one. Has it ever been any different?
Perhaps I was unclear, but I was saying that it would be unconstitutional to teach that in schools. They can advise anyway they like.
A horrifying assault on the 1st amendment would be to force people to convert to Christianity or be jailed or killed. This is troubling.
I’m not so sure. If it’s done in the context of history—what happened in the past—it seems to be fine. And the country’s founding document, the DofI, will give their view great support. While it does not point to Christianity specifically, it does support that belief in Deism or monotheism, which ruled the day, has done some good. The recognition that our rights come from a Creator is what makes the initial argument so compelling.
Now, all this may be fine and well. Or it may go way to far. It all depends on the details.
But I do fervently agree with the last part of your post.
This is an interesting question. If the school teaches a curriculum that “clearly present[s] Christianity as an overall force for good,” does that violate the First Amendment? Well, here’s the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (there is some doubt about its ongoing validity, but it’s what we have for now):
- The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
Can we imagine a curriculum that “present[s] Christianity as an overall force for good” that meets these? Maybe. The most obvious hurdle seems to be the board’s open admission that its intention is to push back against secularism. That is tantamount to an admission of religious purpose. But if we suppose they merely believe that Christianity has played an important and positive role in US history, that could conceivably be a secular purpose. No doubt Christianity and religion in general has played a positive role in the development of civic society, for example. So I think they could possibly get past prong one.
Similarly, I think they could get past prong two. Telling the accurate history of Christianity in America I don’t think has the primary effect of advancing religion. Especially if they do things like discuss the role of Christianity and the development of the KKK.
The question of excessive entanglement is complicated. It often arises when a law forces the judiciary to make judgments about the whether a particular religion holds certain tenants, or even more obviously to judge the truth or centrality of those tenets. That isn’t at issue here. I think one can envision a secular way to discuss the role of Christianity in history without excessive entanglement.
Is Texas likely to walk that line successfully? Doubtful.
Some information on Wall Builders, from their website:
I don’t see any of those as objectionable, or at odds with The Constitution.
I went to school in Pennsylvania. We got references to Quakers all over the place in our history lessons. Not Quakerism (or whatever it’s called), just Quakers. Also the usual bumph about the Pilgrims, the Puritans and a bit about Roger Williams. Admittedly that was the 1970s; I don’t know what they teach now.
Tell me you understand the difference between officially advocating one particular religion in a public school vs not advocating any, and why one violates the separation clause and the other doesn’t. Please tell me that. Lie if you have to.
There’s no big surprise here, given the bent of the woman Gov. Perry named to head the Board of Education:
"In 2004 Ms. Lowe opposed requiring that publishers obey curriculum standards and put medically accurate information about responsible pregnancy and disease prevention in new high school health textbooks…In 2003 and 2009 Ms. Lowe supported dumbing down the state’s public school science curriculum by voting to include unscientific, creationist criticisms of evolution in science textbooks and curriculum standards.”
Do tell. What such organizations do you credit with the formation of the United States, and why?
And if you truly believe that liberals have distorted history in an attempt to promote their agenda, do you think it’s a proper answer to have conservatives distort history to further their agenda?
The point is to what degree is a school allowed to relate FACTS. Faith played a role—a positive role—in the foundation of the country. Let’s say it the role it played is X. If you slant the facts to diminish that role, you are altering history in a way that works against the role faith actually played. Christianity, for instance. If you alter history in a way that makes faith more important, you’re skewing things the other way. They both are a statement on the role of faith in government. Given that, the actual role faith (Christianity) played in our founding is fairly open to interpretation, so it is difficult, except in extreme circumstances to say that either side is running afoul of the Constitution—when discussing history. Unless you think that the facts of history can be unconstitutional.
But, of course, given a vast set of facts, the decision to teach some and not others because you want to advance Christianity would be unconstitutional.
If that were true, it would be wrong too. I learned all about how the Pilgrims came for “religious freedom”, but did not know til years later that most of the people on the Mayflower were not pilgrims. Until I toured Monticello I didn’t know that Thomas Jefferson created a redacted bible by using a razor to cut out the parts of the bible that made Jesus look divine.
It’s important to know that large parts of our current country was settled by Catholic Missionaries, and that Rhode Island was a refuge for those whom the pilgrim’s “religious freedom” did not include, and many other things.
Teaching that Christianity is a force for good is going way to far, and clearly reflects an agenda. Anyone who wants to go to the opposite extreme should be slapped down as well. We want schools to be as de-politicized as possible.
American history is a mixed-bag, however, and it’s going to make some people mad if we teach how entire tribes of Native Americans were force marched from Florida to the Indian Territory, or about slavery and Jim Crow. I’m sure that some of the excesses of Reconstruction were left out of my Boston-area education in order to overemphasize the importance of the pilgrims.
The important thing is that we teach the truth, not from an agenda on either side. In terms of religion, what was remarkable about the founding of the United States was how un-religious it was compared with what the rest of the world was like at it’s time. There is no state-sponsored church and we rejected a hereditary leadership that in most other countries was justified as being sanctioned by God.
On the other hand, to deny that religion played (and plays) a huge role in American history would be disingenous.
Well you’d need to discuss the role of Christianity in the founding of the nation to make those events make sense wouldn’t you?
Yes.
The idea of de-politicizing Social Studies classes is an oxymoron, Social Studies is political history.
Yes, probably.
Yes, but that’s as much a reflection on the protestant underpinnings of our society as it is on any sort of areligious undercurrent you think you’re seeing. The Protestants believed that there needn’t be an intercessionary hierarchy that every person could talk to God. That’s pretty central, and as Protestants were split into many factions it made sense not to try and make the government have a religious role. It needn’t be areligious to explain those aspects of our founding.
Then we are in agreement.
It’s funny how ideologues cannot possibly comprehend that someone who doesn’t 100% agree with them is not lying or stupid.
Anyway…Christianity is the main religion that influenced this nation, so singling it out as a force that played upon our nation’s SOCIAL history, so STUDIES of it to the exclusion of other religions are hardly inappropriate.
The way things have played out in this nation are somewhat unfortunate with the left taking a decidedly anti-Christian bent and Christians jerking their knees in response.
A more level headed analysis of the culture wars that is open and honest would be preferrable in my opinion.
Of course the problem here is state sponsored education at all as history is IMPOSSIBLE to teach without a political bias.
The trick is to teach the kids the debate, not the resolution of debates that have yet to be resolved. When you teach a resolution as you would like for it to be resolved, that is where you run up against a heavy bias.
That being said, textbooks are obsolete, kids should be issued one inexpensive laptop that costs about the same as two textbooks and have online course curricula that can be tailored by jurisdiction much more easily than printed textbooks can.
Possible. But it all comes down to degree.
Do you really think anyone is denying the fact that the main religion that influenced the US was Christianity? Do you have a reason to believe that any history book used in the US says anything otherwise?
To say that religion was the major influence in creating the United States is going way out on a limb. Almost every other country in the world at that time was equally religious, so why didn’t they adopt a constitutional democracy? The answer is complex and has as much to do with economics as anything else.
(bolding mine)
BTW…that treaty was unanimously approved.
Well various churches, from Quakers to Puritans to Episcopalians for instance. Quasi-religious organizations such as Masons. An often neglected role of churches is their role as a community focal point. Oftentimes the central meeting place in a town early in our history was THE CHURCH. In many places it was the main auditorium in the town and that suited people just fine as most people belonged to the church in many cases. Then there is also the aspect where Manifest Destiny and the missionary impulse it embodied were highly religious beliefs. The idea of America as the new Jerusalem a city on the Hill, a light unto the nations and Pax Americana have driven our foreign policy. Even when the ideas that we are fighting a war against godless communism or spreading Democracy come about, they are essentially just Christian heresies based upon the same proselytizing impulse of the missionary, only tailored to suit a different political slant. That metamorphosis should be taught in schools IMV.
No, I think we should teach the debate, not the answer to the debate. Neither side should win out, and ultimately both sides have historically manipulated curriculums to their own agendas.
Don’t forget that there are plenty of negative aspects to the history of Christianity in America, such as:
- The use of the Bible to justify slavery
- The claim by the Confederacy that God was on their side
- The harm that missionaries often inflicted on Native American communities
- The arrogance of “Manifest Destiny”
- The history of discrimination against Jews and Catholics
- The interference of religion in science (Scopes Monkey trial, etc.)
- The Christian underpinnings of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supramacist groups
- The ongoing discrimination against gays
- The perpetuation of a divisive “culture war” rending the social fabric of America
Somehow I don’t think these folks welcome a warts-and-all portrayal as opposed to an idealized, whitewashed one.
Yes, this is more of a common fallacy I see that I don’t know if there is a name for. I’ll call it argument ad legalum. 
It’s the idea that legal history supersedes cultural history, which it does not.