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

[Sheilbh]

Theology is a standard university level subject in the UK.  My uni was particularly specialist in Buddhism.  Very often you'd bump into a Buddhist monk or nun in the library.

[Viking]

The Quakers were spent as a political and religious force by the mid 19th century. And while it's certainly true that there were Evangelicals, especially in the South who were against abolition (justifying slavery via the curse of Ham), it is also true that in the North radical abolition was primarily pushed by Evangelicals and their churches and reform organizations.

An evangelical is a Protestant who believes in the need for a born again conversion experience, who emphasizes the death, resurrection and salvation of Christ, and one who respects the authority of the bible. The later has trended towards literalism in the recent century.

http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/

Indeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism–revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)–became "revivalism" as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical "Benevolent Empire" (in historian Martin Marty's words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women's movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and–most controversial of all–the abolition movement.

Quakers were the driving force behind the American Anti Slavery Society. That society and other secular organisations based on the liberal (Whig) tradition forming the Free Soil and eventually Republican Party were Abolitionist doesn't mean any thing to you then either? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that religion can be a person's driving factor in supporting Abolition. However the most famous US abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln (he decided not to move for a ban for political reason, but he most definitively was an abolitionist), was at best a deist, and had the concept existed at the time possibly been an atheist. You can't give credit to evangelical Christianity for the actions of some of it's followers when the defining factor for being pro or anti Abolition was not religion, but rather economic and cultural (with the obvious exception of Quakers). When two evangelical churches, one in Massachusetts and the other in South Carolina, have congregations with diametrically opposed views on slavery you can't credit the church or the church doctrine or theology for the virtue of the Massachusetts church and ignore the social and economic factors in Massachusetts life as opposed to South Carolina life. Religion is not a deciding factor except in a few rare cases, it is part of a rationalisation for a choice taken for social and political reasons. Show me southern evangelical abolitionists who credit their religion for their agitation against interest then I'll listen.

Edit: Not to mention that the first American abolitionists were Deists like Thomas Paine who were roundly condemned by the Evangelicals of the Great Awakening.

[Neil]

While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.

The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.

[jimmy olsen]

The Quakers were spent as a political and religious force by the mid 19th century. And while it's certainly true that there were Evangelicals, especially in the South who were against abolition (justifying slavery via the curse of Ham), it is also true that in the North radical abolition was primarily pushed by Evangelicals and their churches and reform organizations.

An evangelical is a Protestant who believes in the need for a born again conversion experience, who emphasizes the death, resurrection and salvation of Christ, and one who respects the authority of the bible. The later has trended towards literalism in the recent century.

http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/

Indeed, by the 1820s evangelical Protestantism was by far the dominant expression of Christianity in the United States. The concept of evangelism–revival-codified, streamlined, and routinized by evangelists like Charles G. Finney (1792-1875)–became "revivalism" as evangelicals set out to convert the nation. By the decades prior to the War Between the States, a largely-evangelical "Benevolent Empire" (in historian Martin Marty's words) was actively attempting to reshape American society through such reforms as temperance, the early women's movement, various benevolent and betterment societies, and–most controversial of all–the abolition movement.

Quakers were the driving force behind the American Anti Slavery Society. That society and other secular organisations based on the liberal (Whig) tradition forming the Free Soil and eventually Republican Party were Abolitionist doesn't mean any thing to you then either? I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that religion can be a person's driving factor in supporting Abolition. However the most famous US abolitionist, Abraham Lincoln (he decided not to move for a ban for political reason, but he most definitively was an abolitionist), was at best a deist, and had the concept existed at the time possibly been an atheist. You can't give credit to evangelical Christianity for the actions of some of it's followers when the defining factor for being pro or anti Abolition was not religion, but rather economic and cultural (with the obvious exception of Quakers). When two evangelical churches, one in Massachusetts and the other in South Carolina, have congregations with diametrically opposed views on slavery you can't credit the church or the church doctrine or theology for the virtue of the Massachusetts church and ignore the social and economic factors in Massachusetts life as opposed to South Carolina life. Religion is not a deciding factor except in a few rare cases, it is part of a rationalisation for a choice taken for social and political reasons. Show me southern evangelical abolitionists who credit their religion for their agitation against interest then I'll listen.

Edit: Not to mention that the first American abolitionists were Deists like Thomas Paine who were roundly condemned by the Evangelicals of the Great Awakening.

Of course the Quakers founded the Anti-slavery society, but by the 1830s-60s, it was the Northern evangelicals that were in the van. Also, there were Quakers opposed to slavery before Paine.

Though I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln, lets not twist the facts here. He was for gradual abolition and recolonization. It was only under the purifying fires of war that he became more radical and took advantage of the opportunity given him to free the slaves. He can't possibly be compared to those like Garrison and Weld that had labored for decades in favor of immediate emancipation. You're correct in your evaluation of Lincoln's religious beliefs, but only as they were before the war. As his politics were changed by the war, so was his faith. If you read his writing it becomes clear that his believe in God strengthens over the war. His speeches become much more spiritual and theological in nature.

How do you differentiate religious factors from social and political factors? I think that in most people, especially of the time they were closely linked.

[jimmy olsen]

While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.

The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.

The changes wrought by the Civil War were vastly more revolutionary than those wrought by the Revolution, and they would reverberate strongly for more than hundred years.

[Syt]

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

I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.

Shit, that's depressing. We did have Germanic burial mounds, but also Vikings, Hanseatic League, Reformation/Thirty Years War and a trip to the concentration camp Bergen-Belsen as part of local history during our history class.

[citizen k]

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

I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.

Shit, that's depressing. We did have Germanic burial mounds, but also Vikings, Hanseatic League, Reformation/Thirty Years War and a trip to the concentration camp Bergen-Belsen as part of local history during our history class.

We had field trips to Native American pictographs at Paint Rock, Texas.


I remember seeing those Hünengraben outside of  Lüneburg.

[Viking]

Of course the Quakers founded the Anti-slavery society, but by the 1830s-60s, it was the Northern evangelicals that were in the van. Also, there were Quakers opposed to slavery before Paine.

Though I'm a great fan of Abraham Lincoln, lets not twist the facts here. He was for gradual abolition and recolonization. It was only under the purifying fires of war that he became more radical and took advantage of the opportunity given him to free the slaves. He can't possibly be compared to those like Garrison and Weld that had labored for decades in favor of immediate emancipation. You're correct in your evaluation of Lincoln's religious beliefs, but only as they were before the war. As his politics were changed by the war, so was his faith. If you read his writing it becomes clear that his believe in God strengthens over the war. His speeches become much more spiritual and theological in nature.

Enough dead young boys can do that to you.

But I hope that my point about the abolition movement not being an Evangelical Christian movement is made.

How do you differentiate religious factors from social and political factors? I think that in most people, especially of the time they were closely linked.

The way you differentiate anything. You control for as many variables as possible and then you try to see a relationship between the two factors you are comparing.

In this case the religion (except for Quakers) of a person doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in determining the person's position on Abolition. Religion is very useful as a rationalisation for a choice already taken. The bible not only permits slavery, but it also calls on you to love thy neighbour as thyself. You can find support for either side in the bible. You will pick and choose which verses to weigh based on the choice already made. A person will watch fox news to confirm an opinion already held (same with msnbc), not to be challenged into forming a new one.

[Neil]

While I agree that it's not a religious conflict, it is an important factor in the most important conflict/event of our nation's history.

The rebellion was more important than the Civil War and the social changes that followed World War II were more important than the end of slavery.

The changes wrought by the Civil War were vastly more revolutionary than those wrought by the Revolution, and they would reverberate strongly for more than hundred years.

Not really.  Blacks were still heavily disadvantaged, and the fall of the South had started with the industrialization of the North.

[grumbler]

I considered the entire discussion a sidebar rather than a central portion of study. I do not agree with you, which is fine, but I wonder how much of the Great Awakening or religion is even mentioned now in your classroom.

I don't teach US history right now, but when I did, both Great Awakenings were mentioned as evidence that people in general were dissatisfied with the then-current social values and the perceived goals of the opinion leaders of the time.  Religious revivalism is a symptom, IMO, of a social malaise, rather than a cause of it (or a cure for it).

My main theme in teaching US history was the establishment/articulation of the US political/social ideals and the extent to which different groups, movements, and individuals actually lived up to those ideals (which lead us, of course, to why they didn't, which is what the kids walked away remembering).  You cannot teach everything, and if one says "we need to teach more about X...." one must, as Berkut notes, continue with "therefor we will teach less about Y."

[Berkut]

Nope, I imply nothing of the sort - anything I have said, I have stated rather clearly, I think.

Someone, namely Meri, has stated that she thinks we should spend more time talking about the religious aspects of some historical events. I have disagreed with her on the basis that she has not provided any reason to think that the religious context of the writing of the Constitution is not given adequate coverage already. In other words, *she* is claiming that the experts are wrong. Which is fine -experts certainly can be wrong - but I find her arguments unconvincing, especially given that she has stated very clearly that she actually has not idea what is taught.

Actually, I'm claiming that those writing the textbooks aren't experts, per the article cited. And I do have an idea of what is taught, but not enough so to say decidedly what should be minimized in favor of the back story of the founding fathers. I'd rather not say something decisively until I do, though I agree that local and state government could do with a paring down. As your comments haven't been very convincing to me that I'm mistaken in my opinion, either, I'd say we're at an impasse.

Indeed we are - there is really no where to go once someone simply refuses to think through the consequences of their position.

[derspiess]

I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.

At least you guys had decent mounds.  Ours sucked.  Though I guess we mercifully only had one semester of WV History.

[KRonn]

I hated those fucking mounds. And field trips to them.

At least you guys had decent mounds.  Ours sucked.  Though I guess we mercifully only had one semester of WV History.

Um... we have a  rock (Plymouth rock) in Massachusetts!   

[Oexmelin]

I'm surprised that Harvard doesn't have a religious studies department. I've been to a small liberal arts college and a state university and neither shied away from religion. The fact that Bard is one of the most liberal colleges in the nation didn't stop them from studying it in a serious way.

Harvard has the Harvard Divinity School, which hosts about 50 faculty members. The teaching of religious studies is done by a Committee on the Study of Religion which is an umbrella bringing together faculty from different department, yes, but most are from the Divinity School.

[Caliga]

  @ Tim.

I used to work a fair bit on projects with the Divinity School fundraisers, as we were another "poor tub" at the university.  The rich tubs like the Medical School, the Law School, and the Business School hung together and the poor tubs had their own little clique going.  It was very junior high-ish.