Texas board tries to imbue school textbooks for the U.S. with God/Christianity

[merithyn]

How Christian Were the Founders?

LAST MONTH, A WEEK before the Senate seat of the liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy fell into Republican hands, his legacy suffered another blow that was perhaps just as damaging, if less noticed. It happened during what has become an annual spectacle in the culture wars.

Over two days, more than a hundred people — Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors; people outfitted in everything from business suits to military fatigues to turbans to baseball caps — streamed through the halls of the William B. Travis Building in Austin, Tex., waiting for a chance to stand before the semicircle of 15 high-backed chairs whose occupants made up the Texas State Board of Education. Each petitioner had three minutes to say his or her piece.

"Please keep César Chávez" was the message of an elderly Hispanic man with a floppy gray mustache.

"Sikhism is the fifth-largest religion in the world and should be included in the curriculum," a woman declared.

Following the appeals from the public, the members of what is the most influential state board of education in the country, and one of the most politically conservative, submitted their own proposed changes to the new social-studies curriculum guidelines, whose adoption was the subject of all the attention — guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years. Gail Lowe — who publishes a twice-a-week newspaper when she is not grappling with divisive education issues — is the official chairwoman, but the meeting was dominated by another member. Don McLeroy, a small, vigorous man with a shiny pate and bristling mustache, proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strong-arming.

The article is quite long, but well worth reading. The author does a great job of balancing the two sides, I think.

The questions that come to my mind after reading this article:

• Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?
• Should this board be made up entirely of professors or other educators rather than lay people?
• Given that so many states already seem to rely on the Texas board, should the Federal government take over this aspect of public education to offer an option to the states (offer, not require inclusion)?

[Ed Anger]

Good. We must fight the growing Martiniusism with every weapon in the arsenal.

[Martinus]

America.

[Berkut]

Did any gays kiss in front of the council?

[Grey Fox]

It's already too late for America's youth anyway.

[Faeelin]

• Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?

Eh. I don't have a problem with this, but I question whether a politically motivated board can really capture the flavor of what was going on. 

[merithyn]

• Should textbooks show more of the religiosity of the times and influences of the creation of the U.S.?

Eh. I don't have a problem with this, but I question whether a politically motivated board can really capture the flavor of what was going on.

That's kind of my opinion. I do think the whitewash of the religious influence doesn't help the situation, but I'm fairly sure this particular group of people aren't the ones to show the balance of the forefathers. The idea that while there were Christian groups involved and important to the creation of the documents AND that those same people struggled to keep any religious language OUT of the documents is completely lost on them.

[Faeelin]

That's kind of my opinion. I do think the whitewash of the religious influence doesn't help the situation, but I'm fairly sure this particular group of people aren't the ones to show the balance of the forefathers. The idea that while there were Christian groups involved and important to the creation of the documents AND that those same people struggled to keep any religious language OUT of the documents is completely lost on them.

I suppose I'm mainly concerned about the whitewashing of a complicated topics, and how they will clearly downplay religious tension. If you read the diaries of Anglican missionaries in the Carolina back country, it's pretty eye opening.  "And then they released the dogs upon me, for I wasn't Presbyterian. And then I said they were living in sin and in violation of the crown's law, because they had been married by a dissenter." Or the way Baptist Churches were harassed and persecuted in the 1740s and, arguably, up until the 1770s. Or the way Quakers were harassed and dispossessed of land during the Revolution, for refusing to swear loyalty oaths to the government.

This isn't going to come up, because the goal is to persuade kids we are a nation of God, not that religious tension has been part of American history and bound up in a variety of issues.

[Martinus]

What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.

I mean, they weren't active in the field of religion, but politics, and as far as I understand from the superficial read of the article, even rightwingers concede that their religious beliefs did not explicitly inform their political decisions (e.g. they did not fill the US Constitution with references to the Christian mythology, but instead introduced the concept of the separation of church and state).

Consequently, even if they were devout Christians, they apparently considered their religious beliefs a private matter. So teaching about their religion would be like teaching about their sexual life or dietary preferences. 

[Berkut]

What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.

It is relevant to their (the modern busybodies) agenda - has nothing to do with any actual scholarly interest in how their religious views might have impacted the political agendas of the Founding Fathers.

And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.

[merithyn]

I suppose I'm mainly concerned about the whitewashing of a complicated topics, and how they will clearly downplay religious tension. If you read the diaries of Anglican missionaries in the Carolina back country, it's pretty eye opening.  "And then they released the dogs upon me, for I wasn't Presbyterian. And then I said they were living in sin and in violation of the crown's law, because they had been married by a dissenter." Or the way Baptist Churches were harassed and persecuted in the 1740s and, arguably, up until the 1770s. Or the way Quakers were harassed and dispossessed of land during the Revolution, for refusing to swear loyalty oaths to the government.

This isn't going to come up, because the goal is to persuade kids we are a nation of God, not that religious tension has been part of American history and bound up in a variety of issues.

Keeping in mind that the things you're going over now are better suited for a university class than a middle- or high-school class, it's not surprising that not much of this is gone over in the texts. And if they were to be addressed, I'd say it should be a small bit in the creation of the Constitution, but delved in more deeply in the Religion portions of the classes.

[merithyn]

What I don't understand is why the religion of these political figures would be relevant at all.

I mean, they weren't active in the field of religion, but politics, and as far as I understand from the superficial read of the article, even rightwingers concede that their religious beliefs did not explicitly inform their political decisions (e.g. they did not fill the US Constitution with references to the Christian mythology, but instead introduced the concept of the separation of church and state).

Consequently, even if they were devout Christians, they apparently considered their religious beliefs a private matter. So teaching about their religion would be like teaching about their sexual life or dietary preferences. 

As Faeelin said, it's because religion and religious conflict has had a huge hand in creating who we are as a nation, just as racial concerns and the feminist movement have done so. To ignore this aspect of influence is to ignore a huge portion of what happened and why, and how to interpret it today. It is essential to know the why as much as the what in order to move forward with the same agenda as the founding fathers intended.

[Berkut]

In general, I would oppose any inclusion of religious topics in high school textbooks when the inclusion is being done at the behest of groups like this.

You know it isn't about anything other than getting a vehicle for delivering their faith message. They could not care less about actual scholarship.

[Habbaku]

Did any gays kiss in front of the council?

More importantly, were any of them assaulted?

[merithyn]

And re: meri's comment
And of course academic curriculum should be largely determined by academics. I mean, duh.

You say this and yet a large portion of those deciding what goes into the curriculum are no more academics than you or I. In fact, a lot of those involved are politicians rather than educators. So if it's so obvious, why is it not happening?