One of the panel, David Barton, founder of a Christian 
heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual." (Link)
heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual." (Link)A good friend of mine who is a few steps away from having a Ph.D. in Southwestern Studies (and happens to be a minister) likes to remind me that the religious freedom in the United States can be largely attributed to the deists who founded our country.
If we are going to ask schools to teach the importance of Christianity in founding our nation, isn't it only fair that we also teach the influence of Deism? Most schoolchildren are familiar with church but can't tell you what Deism is, so which religion of the founding fathers is really being repressed? When we consider the role of Thanksgiving and the two Great Awakenings in our history books it's hard to say that Christian faith is not represented.
In fact, it is almost the only faith represented in American History books. To this day, most people think the Native Americans were simply pantheists like the Greeks and couldn't tell you anything about their religion. Should this religion, as well as Deism, also be a part of the curriculum? It seems draconian to expect our faith to be the only one that history considers important.
"These knobs go up to ELEVEN!"Christianity already has the dominant role in American history books and I don't think we gain anything by asking it to be placed on a higher pedestal. The picture above is one that you may have seen in a textbook - but it won't be so easy to find a picture of a Deist school or a Native American ceremony in your books. The church has already won this game of king of the hill and stirring up this issue in an inflammatory way is not going to bring new members into your church.
12 comments:
You've received your information from an obviously hostile source. I'd be interested in hearing the TSBE's version of the nature of these changes. I can easily assume, though, that what the Christians involved want to do is fix the curriculum to properly reflect of the influence our Christian heritage on American exceptionalism.
I disagree with your PhD friend. The influence of Deists is largely overrated by modern historians. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin are both famously purported as Deists. I'd say that these men labeled as such proves your comment that the education on Deism is lacking except that this mistaken labeling is typically sourced from history books. But a full study of these men's writings quickly reveals a veneration and declaration of necessity of religion in a free society. Tom never was a Deist and Ben later rejected Deism as a beneficial worldview. Meanwhile, nothing is heard about the other 54 signers of the Declaration aside from John Adams; schoolkids use to study their biographies.
Though our Christian heritage is so strong that many aspects cannot be outright ignored (such as Thanksgiving and the Great Awakenings), the true influences are often glossed over -- Thanksgiving being a perfect example. And students are taught that religion (particularly Christianity) represses freedom (the "Dark Ages") and that secularism burgeoned our modern system of government (the "Enlightenment"), both historically backward premises. Nobody can imagine why there would be antidisestablishmentarians because they have been taught that our nation was founded with separation of church and state. (For the record, I'm a disestablishmentarian.)
The Christian and British constitutionalist heritage of our Founding Fathers is what made this country exceptional, and if we do not teach our students these facts properly, then, as our Founding Fathers themselves warned on many an occasion, we will lose the very freedoms they fought so hard to bequeath us. It's not draconian to emphasize the religion that set the Western world and our country apart and allowed us to flourish beyond the dreams of the rest of the world. It's sensible.
Jared, I can assure you as a Christian, a historian, and as a person who has been diligently following this story, Adam's source is not hostile. If anything, it's being very kind.
The board was appointed by Texas lawmakers to discuss how social studies and history books might be changed in public schools (it's been 10 years since this has happened). The political left got to appoint three members, and the political right three as well. The Left appointed a bunch of History professors with Ph.D.s, teaching experience, and excellent scholarly credentials. Sounds reasonable, considering the gravity of the decision they have to make regarding millions of textbooks which kids will read for the next decade.
The Right, sadly, but predictably, appointed three people, NONE of whom are trained historians, nor do they hold Ph.D.s in the field of history. Instead, they appointed two men (David Barton and Peter Marshall) who are two of the most notorious American providentialists of our day. Rather than doing real history, they want to make history in their own image, claiming Christianity as the primary motivating factor in the early Republic for almost everything, even if the evidence clearly points to something else. They want to do away with anything that remotely sounds like social or cultural history, leaving only political or legal history. Of course, what that does is silence many voices in early America that were NOT white and rich. What they do is NOT history. What they do is right-wing political propaganda.
When this comes open for public debate, you better believe I'll be arguing against the right-wing propagandists and with the left-wing historians.
That said, Jared, you are right about the term "deist" being much overused. Very few of the important founders were true deists. In fact, most of them believed in a God who was active in human affairs (the opposite of the clockmaker god of the deists). Of course, even fewer of them were what we would call evangelical, or even orthodox Christians. If John Adams, Madison, Jefferson, and possibly even Washington were to walk into your average ORTHODOX Christian church today, their request for membership would be denied.
I should stop now.
I believe the source of truth is the Bible, not historical stories and legends. Could someone explain to me how the right to vote and the Bill of Rights can be found in the Bible? Was ancient Israel a democracy?
Christian/American, Kingdom of Heaven/America are completely, wholly separate things that do not need to be blurred together.
Brian ~ whereas I relished the opportunity to butt heads with Adam for a change, this would be twice in a week wherein I've come out on the other side of an issue with you, and so I am uncomfortable, my estranged friend.
I shall resist the urge to deprecate PhD credentials except for this sentence, mostly out of respect for your own studious education which I regard highly.
But I will criticize your separation of "right-wing propagandists" and "left-wing historians." I believe any fair reckoning would regard both sides as the same thing -- whichever moniker you prefer.
My secondary school history education occurred at a private Christian school, but even overtly Christian textbooks left me with an impression that Christianity had been less influential in early American society and government systems than I later discovered when I took my education into my own hands (and I haven't even read anything by Barton or Marshall!). Christianity may not be the heart that beat the blood of freedom, but it was certainly the veins which enabled it to course.
Kevin ~ Ancient Israel was a theocracy; after rejecting their theocracy, they were a monarchy. None of that has bearing on the present topic.
As concisely as I can (to avoid another wall of text), Christian principle's contribution to the Bill of Rights was the concept that even rulers were under the authority of God Almighty and only mortal men (and fallen men at that!), and that each citizen is a (potential) child of God with equal right to life and liberty as any other. These blessings are bestowed by God and can & should not be denied by other men.
I have no problem with a history curriculum representing our diverse religious heritage, including Deism and the Original American. We would need to include the Freemasons as well, if they would openly share their involvement in American History.
The problem I have is with the secularization of American History, ignoring the spiritual side of History. For instance, when my children were attending elementary school, they were taught that the pilgrims gave a feast at harvest time to thank the Original Americans for helping them survive. We call that feast Thanksgiving, and while the Original Americans were probably invited and much appreciated, the center of the feast, and the giving of thanks was God. Similar changes to the Christmas season about it being winter solstice, Easter being spring equinox, or Passover, and so on.
Don't throw the book at me yet. I know that winter solstice, and spring equinox were celebrated by pagan cultures long before Christianity, and that Jewish holidays predate Christianity as well. What I am saying is; lets teach it all to the children. Lets teach the facts, all of the facts.
True, Dave, it is sad that textbooks have screwed up Thanksgiving.
Jared, Brian, you've both shown me that I was throwing around the word Deist too loosely; I need to watch out for that.
Kevin, what you are saying is helpful. The evolution of democracy happened outside of biblical texts, thus, the Bible is only ONE influence used by our founding fathers and it is good to study many of these influences.
Jared, we do disagree, but not so much as you think.
You are correct that right-wing and left-wing people are both political. There's no way around it. What I meant with my distinction was that the right-wing people who have been appointed to this committee really do eschew basic historical practices in order to promote their religious and political agendas. On the other hand, the left-wing historians happen to be liberal folks, but they are also historians dedicated to the honest and skilled pursuit of the craft.
And you are also right about the place of Christianity often being deemphasized unfairly. Dave's example of Thanksgiving being changed is perfect. Your examples of how foundational Christian principles of a sovereign God (not a sovereign king) and of the innate equality of all humans were to the country are also good.
But, these are a far cry from then claiming that because the Plymouth Pilgrims explicitly thanked a Christian God in 1620, therefore, the rest of American history flows from that, OR that because Christian principles were essential to the process, they were, therefore, the primary motivating factor.
Whooo. That's enough for now.
I agree with Dave on this one. The same logic doesn't quite apply here as it does to the similar argument made against reinstating prayer in school. I think it's important to include the whole role of religion. Because what the textbooks really seem to be doing is championing one religion, one metanarrative---Secularism, chiefly Humanism and Scientism---and repressing all others.
What's tricky is how to include what normally gets left out---Catholicism for one---in a high school survey class when Christianity's Role in America is a whole class unto itself, let alone Religion's Role in America. There's always a chapter toward the end on contemporary America which should certainly talk about the pluralism we experience today, but in a real way, in a substantial way, rather than in a psudo-tolerance way.
What? I can dream, can't I?
Quite so, Brian, we do agree more than initially apparent. I am quite frustrated that any oversteps by "providentialists" have tarnished their case because I think the facts of history already speak powerfully enough for themselves on the essential role Christian-derived principle played in American exceptionalism.
Adam, look what I found today: an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle by the very guy whose work I recommended you should read on the subject:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6547425.html
How providential.
Post a Comment