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

[MadImmortalMan]

I had a year in 7th grade devoted to state history. Total waste of time, and an easy 'A'.

I had the same one. OMG we have Indian Mounds!!11

[Berkut]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly).  While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few).  That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.

I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?

"Goes to motivation, your honor."  You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion.  Turnabout is fair play. 

So are you making an argument that in fact my motivation in this discussion is based on something other than what I have claimed is my motivation?

Seems like a rather obvious ad hom. Why?

I don't think there is really any debate about the motivation of the people on the Texas School Board - it isn't even really being debated. I don't think this is "turn about" at all, since we all agree that the BoE is using this as an excuse to push their faith agenda, and there certainly is not such an agreement about me having some secret motive beyond what I am simply stating as my position.

Nor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?

You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class.

Actually, the entire discussion has been specifically about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in particular, not about American history in general, and my argument has been specifically about that, insofar as it extends to that topic.

Of course the role of religion in various aspects of American history is variously important - it varies rather wildly though, and any discussion about whether or not they are given enough consideration is going to be rather dependent on the particulars. You certainly cannot make a general observation one way or the other, since there is no one answer that fits all. My position here is that if one is going to argue that the experts got it wrong, then one needs more than the anecdotal tales of a 13 year old and the discredited wailing of a bunch of religious nuts.

I make no claim that the one is connected to the other - that is a strawman of your creation.

.
  I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution,

....which is specifically what is being discussed...

there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.

....you will need to find someone to argue this point with, other than me, since I agree with it. I guess that means any questioning of my motives probably apply to you as well?

Fair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?

If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?

Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now?

Yes - Meri has stated that more time shoudl be given to the role of religion. That time comes from somewhere, so in fact she is arguing that less time should be given to *something* - however, she admits that she doesn't actually know what is taught, so cannot decide what other something should be shortened, or if we find time from some magical place, what other things should be excluded from using that time instead of discussing the role of religion.

  But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift.

Now you are talking about an entire class of things, of which religion is just one factor - "factors that provide motivation". While I won't disagree with you, I will note this is very different from picking one particular factor, and arguing that THAT factor should be given more attention, both to the exclusion of yours "date and places" type information, and to other motivational factors, like racism, or regionalism, economics, politics, etc., etc., etc. You are making a rather different argument here than what either Meri or the Texas BoE is making.

It isn't a bad argument per se, but I won't really take a position on it - again, I would rather trust to the opinions of the professionals on these kinds of issues - I certainly do not claim any special expertise that would trump theirs.

[Viking]

While this discussion is all fair and good, this is an attempt at perpetrating a fraud. David Barton (wikilink) has disseminated false quotes that he has either found of "found" about the nature and views on religion of the founding fathers. This man is a liar, a fraud and not a professional at his appointed task. He has "produced" quotes from noted deiists and unitarians like Patrick Henry, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on how the country should be a christian country. Barton Bashing from positivesatheism.org for more info.

Texas is fucked, and now since california is broke and won't be buying new school books again for a generation, so may be the rest of america.

[Barrister]

Having received a couple university degrees, while what academics have to say should be treated with great respect and consideration, but they have their own agendas to push as much as anyone else, an di"d be unwilling to give them carte blanche to write school curriculum without input of local sensibilities.

There's a creative tension at work between teachers, parents, school boards, academics, and the law / courts.  No set curriculum however is perfect and can always be reviewed and tweaked.

Like many others, I have no problem with the concept of including more discussion of religion when viewed through the lens of a history class.  Certainly religion was a very important factor in Canadian history (largely the stress between the English Protestant majority, and the French Catholic minority, but also including reasons for various other minorities to immigrate, as part of prohibition and various social justice causes, the importance of missionaries to exploring the west, adn as understanding residential schools, and so on).

The motivation of the Texas School Board *may* be a hidden one to push religion in general into classrooms, but I don't think that's grounds to disregard the entire idea.

As for "well, what else would you cut to make room for it"?  Without a comprehensive list of what Texas kids *are* taught, it's impossible to say.  Perhaps the type of material we are discussing is already being taught, so nothing needs changing.  Perhaps after looking at every last item you decide that everything is more improtant and this aspect should be left out.  But to say "well if you can't suggest something specific then we can't discuss it" doesn't seem quite the right way to approach it, since we don't know the extent of the Texas curriculum.

[Berkut]

Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?

I must have missed that post...

[garbon]

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?

If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).

[Barrister]

Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?

I must have missed that post...

Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...

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?

and

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.

[Barrister]

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?

If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).

Purely anecdotal, but that was my experience.  I can't count how many times we were taught Louis Riel, Confederation, and the fur trade...

[Berkut]

Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?

I must have missed that post...

Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...

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?

and

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.

Uhhh, you most certainly did use quotation marks.

And I find it rather odd that you cite me discussing what should be ditched as evidence that I said "we can't discuss it". We are discussing it, so apparently we CAN in fact discuss it. Asking what we should toss in favor of adding more stuff certainly seems like a pretty reasonable topic for discussion when it comes to curriculum, doesn't it?

Is that not a fair question? If someone thinks we should teach more X, I think the FIRST question that should come to mind is what we ought to stop teaching in favor of X.

It's like people arguing that we should spend more money on some social service - do you find it unreasonable to ask them what we ought to get rid of to pay for it? Would you claim that someone asking that question is saying "we can't discuss it"?

[Berkut]

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?

If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).

That is a very good point in fact - but I don't know how to avoid it, especially when it comes to history. It isn't like math, where you can assume that anyone in Algebra II has already had Algebra I.

[dps]

Given that I would have to study a textbook to know what to de-emphasize, it's a pointless question and answer session between us.

But you do insist that there is *soemthing* that can be tossed out in favor of more chat about religion, then? And while you say you don't know what is there, you DO know enough about what is NOT there to have an opinion about what should be added? That seems odd.

She's not arguing for more "chat" about religion in general, she's discussing the possibilty that it might be appropriate to put more emphasis on the role that religion played as a motivation for certain historical events (if I understand her correctly).  While religion and religious faith was not a major factor in the independenced movement or the events surrounding the adoption of the Constitution, they were a major factor in the intial settlement of the colonies, and in many important historical social and political movements (the abolition movement, the prohibiton movement, and the civil rights movement, just to name a few).  That's just the facts, whether you like it or not.

I don't think what I like is really a point of discussion, is it?

"Goes to motivation, your honor."  You've made a point of questioning the motivation of the people on the school board proposing more emphasis on the roll of religion.  Turnabout is fair play. 

So are you making an argument that in fact my motivation in this discussion is based on something other than what I have claimed is my motivation?

Seems like a rather obvious ad hom. Why?

I don't think there is really any debate about the motivation of the people on the Texas School Board - it isn't even really being debated. I don't think this is "turn about" at all, since we all agree that the BoE is using this as an excuse to push their faith agenda, and there certainly is not such an agreement about me having some secret motive beyond what I am simply stating as my position.

'Cause you have a burr up your ass about anything involving religion.  Anytime someone's religious faith is brought up as a factor in any proposal, they're labeled as "fanatics" or "nuts".  Fair enough if we're talking about a Fred Phelps or a suicide bomber, but the vast majority of religious folks aren't like that.  I know that I'm not, and frankly I'm fucking tired of hearing that shit.

So yeah, I have an agenda, too--to not get lumped in with a bunch of assholes just because I believe in God.

Nor have I ever claimed that religion was not a major factor in "many important historical and political movements". Why are you creating this strawman to get all enraged about?

You've made the point that religion did not play a major role in the events surrounding the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution, and cited that as a reason not to emphasize religion more in history class.

Actually, the entire discussion has been specifically about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution in particular, not about American history in general, and my argument has been specifically about that, insofar as it extends to that topic.

Of course the role of religion in various aspects of American history is variously important - it varies rather wildly though, and any discussion about whether or not they are given enough consideration is going to be rather dependent on the particulars. You certainly cannot make a general observation one way or the other, since there is no one answer that fits all. My position here is that if one is going to argue that the experts got it wrong, then one needs more than the anecdotal tales of a 13 year old and the discredited wailing of a bunch of religious nuts.

I make no claim that the one is connected to the other - that is a strawman of your creation.

.
  I'm merely pointing out that while you are correct about the Revolutionary War and the Constitution,

....which is specifically what is being discussed...

there's more to American History, and religion did play a major role in other important historical events.

....you will need to find someone to argue this point with, other than me, since I agree with it. I guess that means any questioning of my motives probably apply to you as well?

Fair enough - although I would wonder why religion should trump other important roles in US history that are not given much time now. Is there some reason to think that religion is given especially short attention compared to other topics?

If we could list, I don't know, two dozen important concepts that shaped US history and culture, is there some reason to think that religion (which would certainly be on such a list, I think we all agree) is given less attention than it deserves, right now?

Has anyone here stated or suggested that religion should trump other topics in US history that are not given much time now?

Yes - Meri has stated that more time shoudl be given to the role of religion. That time comes from somewhere, so in fact she is arguing that less time should be given to *something* - however, she admits that she doesn't actually know what is taught, so cannot decide what other something should be shortened, or if we find time from some magical place, what other things should be excluded from using that time instead of discussing the role of religion.

Presumably, that "something" would be topics that are given too much emphasis now, not other topics that are not given much time now.  I have proposed state and local history as subject matter that might be given less time--and 2 other posters have made posts that at least imply that they broadly agree with me (in fact they seem to go further than me in suggesting that too much time is devoted to state history).  No one has posted anything that disagrees with me on the matter, though you state that there are probably a bunch of people who think learning about state and local history are important (and I didn't say were unimportant;  rather I suggested that they are less important than the time that seems to be devoted to them).

  But since you bring it up, I will say that religion and other factors that provide motivation and context for historical events are generally given short shift.

Now you are talking about an entire class of things, of which religion is just one factor - "factors that provide motivation". While I won't disagree with you, I will note this is very different from picking one particular factor, and arguing that THAT factor should be given more attention, both to the exclusion of yours "date and places" type information, and to other motivational factors, like racism, or regionalism, economics, politics, etc., etc., etc. You are making a rather different argument here than what either Meri or the Texas BoE is making.

It isn't a bad argument per se, but I won't really take a position on it - again, I would rather trust to the opinions of the professionals on these kinds of issues - I certainly do not claim any special expertise that would trump theirs.

I certainly think that we should take advantage of the expertise of the professionals, but I don't think that means that nobody else has anything of value to offer.  Which may not be exactly what you're saying, or mean, but you seem to at least imply it.

[Neil]

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.

Why bother?  If you keep mentioning the root causes of every event you study, you'll never be able to stop.  There is not an infinite amount of time to devote to history classes.

[Barrister]

Did someone say "well if you can't suggest something specific than we can't discuss it"?

I must have missed that post...

Please note that I didn't use quotation marks and wasn't trying to portray what I said was an exact quote, but...

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?

and

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.

Uhhh, you most certainly did use quotation marks.

And I find it rather odd that you cite me discussing what should be ditched as evidence that I said "we can't discuss it". We are discussing it, so apparently we CAN in fact discuss it. Asking what we should toss in favor of adding more stuff certainly seems like a pretty reasonable topic for discussion when it comes to curriculum, doesn't it?

Is that not a fair question? If someone thinks we should teach more X, I think the FIRST question that should come to mind is what we ought to stop teaching in favor of X.

It's like people arguing that we should spend more money on some social service - do you find it unreasonable to ask them what we ought to get rid of to pay for it? Would you claim that someone asking that question is saying "we can't discuss it"?

You are correct I used quotations marks.  Mea culpa.  I intented to use apostrophes, so as only summarize what was said.

Whether something is a good idea is somewhat separate from whether something is feasible (either due to time or money).  It's not that you shouldn't consider feasability, but it is perhaps not the first question that needs to be asked.

[MadImmortalMan]

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?

If anything I thought US history was overemphasized in my education. The issue for me is that we kept learning the same stuff over and over again (although as time passed the same topics were made more morally murky).

QFT. I had no idea how important Nappy's wars or WW1 were to modern day reality from what I got in school. There are about half as many history classes as there needs to be. And I can suggest what I should have gone without in order to make room, too...

[AnchorClanker]

NOTE TO AMERICA:

1.  The US was founded on a tax revolt, suitably spun.  It was not, or ever was, a religious experiment.
2.  Religion is a family matter, and if you want indoctrination, you need to do it AT HOME - don't count on the state.
3.  As per #2, do what you like at home, but DO NOT pretend that your personal religious beliefs = education.