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

[Fate]

The topics Faeelin brings up seem entirely appropriate in AP US History, which would include a hefty chunk of US high schoolers.

[merithyn]

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.

To ignore the opinion of an entire group out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics is to be just like them. You're absolutely correct in that they couldn't care less about actual scholarship, but it doesn't mean that they are 100% incorrect in their assertions.

I disagree with their agenda and the way they would include this topic, but I agree that it should be included in the texts as a basis for why our forefathers did what they did.

[Berkut]

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.

I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.

I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.

Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.

[merithyn]

The topics Faeelin brings up seem entirely appropriate in AP US History, which would include a hefty chunk of US high schoolers.

Perhaps seniors taking AP US History, yes, but not for the majority of students. Since AP classes can (and often do) qualify for college credit, they generally use different texts than the general school population.

[Fate]

I have no clue how they select texts for it. Presumably since the point of the class is to due well on the AP test on that subject, College Board's recommendations are the deciding factor rather than some Texas bible thumpers.

[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.

To ignore the opinion of an entire group out of hand simply because you disagree with their politics is to be just like them. You're absolutely correct in that they couldn't care less about actual scholarship, but it doesn't mean that they are 100% incorrect in their assertions.

No, to ignore a group because I know that their stated motives are a lie to cover their religious agenda is not at all "being just like them".

I disagree with their agenda and the way they would include this topic, but I agree that it should be included in the texts as a basis for why our forefathers did what they did.

And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?

[The Larch]

I wouldn't trust a politically motivated dentist to decide on such matters. 

[merithyn]

I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.

I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.

Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.

It's been a long time since I read a high school text book on American History, but I do not remember this even being addressed in the books that I read in high school. According to Jeremy, his 8th-grade Constitution class didn't address religion or it's importance at all. It wasn't even addressed, much less discussed what affect the religious conflict may have had. The entire point of this year-long course is to discuss the who, what, and why of the most important government document of our nation, and not a word was spoken about religion. Carter and Jak (who had a different teacher) agree that they didn't discuss it at all, either.

It may be that while we understand its importance, the average student is not being taught even a modicum of the affect it may have had.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

That's true, but I think the Great Awakening and the 2nd Great Awakening should be at least mentioned. They had significant impact on the Revolution and the Reform/Abolition movements respectively.

[merithyn]

And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?

It wouldn't take much to incorporate a discussion of religious conflict in with the other topics addressed on what shaped the Constitution. I'm not saying dedicate a month to this discussion, but to include it as part of the already-discussed topics. To exclude it is to gloss over an important part of what made the Constitution what it is.

[Berkut]

I am not really sure I agree that religion and religious conflict had such a huge hand that is not currently being adequately serviced by the curriculum now. Most schoolkids are taught that much colonization in the US was driven by religious persecution, for example, and most know that the Founding Fathers were a rather mixed bag, and included some deeply religious men.

I don't think that "religious conflict" drove who we are as a nation to any great extent - it was there of course, but not nearly as predominant in say, the formation of the British state, or Europe in general. I think it would be easy to vastly over-state its role.

Given the education content is a zero sum game, what should be de-emphasized in order to add more emphasis on this issue of "religious conflict"? I think that, if anything, US curriculum, IMO, has already de-emphasized enough actual history to focus more on social issues as it is - more is hardly needed.

It's been a long time since I read a high school text book on American History, but I do not remember this even being addressed in the books that I read in high school. According to Jeremy, his 8th-grade Constitution class didn't address religion or it's importance at all. It wasn't even addressed, much less discussed what affect the religious conflict may have had. The entire point of this year-long course is to discuss the who, what, and why of the most important government document of our nation, and not a word was spoken about religion. Carter and Jak (who had a different teacher) agree that they didn't discuss it at all, either.

It may be that while we understand its importance, the average student is not being taught even a modicum of the affect it may have had.

I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.

Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.

I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.

[Berkut]

And what should be thrown out to make room for it? What is LESS important that is currently being taught in the rather pathetically short amount of time that is given over to US history as it is, and should be cut from the text so we can focus more on this topic?

It wouldn't take much to incorporate a discussion of religious conflict in with the other topics addressed on what shaped the Constitution. I'm not saying dedicate a month to this discussion, but to include it as part of the already-discussed topics. To exclude it is to gloss over an important part of what made the Constitution what it is.

You are avoiding the question. There is a finite amount of time to discuss this stuff - what should be excluded to make room for this, if in fact it does not get adequate coverage right now?

Honestly, I think the most important topic that relates to religion when it comes to the US Constitutions is the effort made to ensure freedom of religion, and the pointed lack of mention of religion, in stark contrast to many political structures of the time. I suspect that isn't what they are thinking about though.

[merithyn]

I don't think an eigth grade class on US history needs to go into more than a cursory amount of detail about the importance of religion to the the forming of the US Constitution, and certainly not with the slant that a board full of religious zealots are going to put on it.

Again, what do you think we should ditch in favor of more religious indoctrination? remember - the choice here is not between a reasoned and rational discussion of the impact of religion and something else - it is between whatever concept of religious discussion a board of Chrstian fundies want to have in the textbooks and something else.

I await your answer on what we should ditch in their favor.

Obviously, you're not listening to what I'm saying if this is what you believe I would like to see happen. And since I'm not interested in getting into a discussion that has two faces, I'll end it now. When you want to discuss what I'm actually trying to say rather than your distorted version of things, I'll be happy to respond.

And in answer to your question, there is no need to get rid of anything. Rather, take a moment to discuss the Awakening (as Jimmy suggested) as a portion of what's already there.

[merithyn]

Honestly, I think the most important topic that relates to religion when it comes to the US Constitutions is the effort made to ensure freedom of religion, and the pointed lack of mention of religion, in stark contrast to many political structures of the time. I suspect that isn't what they are thinking about though.

This is what I'm talking about including in the curriculum, not what the Texas Board members are pushing for. As I said before.

[Berkut]

Note that my basic position is not really that religion should not be discussed - rather, I am perfectly content to let the experts in the field decide what is the appropriate amount based on their evaluation of its impact and importance - relative to other topics.

If those experts ahve decided that the amount of content is X, then I am skeptical of someone coming along and saying "Hey, I am a religious fanatic, and I think the amount of content should be X+y, but don't worry, it isn't because I am a religious fanatic, it is because I just think X is not an adequate amount! Oh, and I would like to have veto power over the content that you add in order to make up the difference....I will drop you a line with some suggestions for those who would like to sell us textbooks once we all agree that there needs to be more religious content...".